Why the Right Fails to Change Culture: “We don’t do videos.”

Why the Right Fails to Change Culture: “We don’t do videos.” By Larry Schweikart.

No one in conservative circles denies we are getting crushed in the culture wars. Yes, key conservatives have been banned from major social media. Yes, Facebook, Twitter, Google are biased.

But the broader question should be, “Why were conservatives relegated to predominantly social media in the first place?” Why are there virtually no conservative television shows? Why is Fox … the only “conservative” news network, and even then, one whose “conservatism” is fading rapidly? Why are there no conservative graphic novels?

Of course, Andrew Breitbart was the John the Baptist of this element of our culture. The creation of (at first) Drudge Report, then later Breitbart News, was essential to broadening a conservative alternative. But it wasn’t nearly sufficient. …

Hollywood:

One well-known actor told me, “When you go on a production site, at lunch time all the trucks where the stage construction workers and set designers are having lunch have Rush Limbaugh on. But if the director comes by, they turn it down.”

Another director told me of a conversation two of his producer friends had with an Amazon Prime executive as they pitched their children’s show. “We don’t take material from white males,” they were instructed. “The era of Aryan supremacy is dead.” Realize these two men had several successes in the field already, and possessed a track record of profits.

Prager U:

Their four-minute videos are masterpieces of hard-hitting, well-scripted commentary with a minimum of production added. Prager’s reach is immense. …

Prager’s work is incredible and provides key issue discussions for the “skulls full of mush” who are today’s youth. It does suffer, however, from two weaknesses. First, because the videos draw from diverse conservative voices who in general support each other’s fundamental assumptions, the gaps between each are enormous and the small differences between, say, a monetarist and an Art Laffer Trump supporter can be confusing to the point of fraying all commonalities. This is why college classes are usually taught by one professor, and why team teaching tends to break down without rigid control.

The other weakness of Prager U. videos is that they are, by design, focused on a niche market, namely those people interested in short takes on a particular issue. Again, without minimizing in the least the tremendous value of addressing this niche market, it does not take the place of thousands of hours of more subtle brainwashing on the part of what passes for “entertainment.” And it’s not just movies and television, but music and graphic novels as well.

Conservatives don’t do video:

As I began my “tour” of conservative think tanks, I was asking for what (in Hollywood terms) was a catering budget — about $450,000 per episode to make a six-hour series based on A Patriot’s History. …

I was not surprised at the first response from Heritage Foundation, which was simply, “We don’t do videos.” This pretty much ended all discussion. “What do you fund?” I asked. “We fund panel discussions, speakers, white papers.” “Do you realize,” I countered, “that none of those will reach youths, let alone significantly influence them?” I received a blank stare. Finally, the person I spoke with said again, “Well, we just don’t do videos.” …

Over the next several years, I met with virtually all of the conservative organizations and think tanks. Almost to a word, they repeated the “We-don’t-do-video” response I got at Heritage. …

Entertainment industry says “no” to conservatives too:

Consider the fact that not one major film depicting the life and/or challenges of Ronald Reagan has been made. A picture about Ronald Reagan, with Dennis Quaid attached to play Reagan, has languished for over a year. Pretty soon, Quaid will be too old to play the Gipper. At least one other Reagan script, somewhat more imaginary—but positive nonetheless—has yet to gain financial traction. Reagan’s life in Hollywood alone would make terrific storytelling, from the threats to have acid thrown in his face for his role as head of SAG to his epic battles with the communists inside the Screen Actor’s Guild (which he won). But from the filmmakers and financiers in Hollywood? Crickets.

And thus the culture war was lost, then a civilization.

Is America Becoming Sinicized?

Is America Becoming Sinicized? By Victor Davis Hanson.

A little over 40 years ago, Chinese Communist strongman and reformer Deng Xiaoping began 15 years of sweeping economic reforms. …

Abroad, China systematically violated every tenet of international trade and commerce. It stole copyrights and patents. It ran up huge trade surpluses. It dumped products at below the cost of production to hook international customers. It threatened critics with boycotts, divestments, and expulsions. It manipulated its currency. It demanded technology transfers from companies doing business in China. It created a vast espionage network in Western countries to steal technology. And it increasingly bullied and threatened its Asian neighbors.

Such criminality abroad and such repression at home was contextualized and mostly excused by Western nations.

Our elite got it completely wrong, backwards even:

U.S. foreign policy toward China seemed to be based on the belief that the more China modernized and the more affluent its citizens became, the more inevitable Chinese political freedom would be.

Supposedly a free-market China would drop its Communist past to become a Westernized democracy such as Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan. Once China fully joined the family of successful, law-abiding nations, it would empower Western freedoms and help create a stable international order.

None of that came close to happening.

There was never evidence that China wished to end Communism — other than to allow some market reforms designed to strengthen its dictatorial rule and its influence overseas.

If in the past Chinese Communism impoverished its own citizens but left the world mostly alone, now it has enriched more than a billion people at home and terrified six billion abroad. …

Instead, the West is becoming more like China, while allowing China to be excused for anything:

Westerners, who apologize when Islamists kill cartoonists and journalists for supposedly insulting Islam, do not say a word when China puts a million Muslims into re-education camps, bulldozes Islamic cemeteries, and shuts down mosques.

Loud human-rights lions in Europe turn into kittens when it is a question of Chinese organ-harvesting, forced abortions and sterilizations, and the jailing and execution of dissidents.

American environmentalists demand a radical shutdown of the current fossil-fuel-based U.S. economy. They say little about greenhouse-gas emissions from China, the biggest polluter in the world by far.

Outspoken NBA athletes and hip Hollywood celebrities damn the Second Amendment, curse their president, and boycott states they find politically incorrect. But they become abject cowards when it comes to China.

Loud college students who disrupt campus speakers and forbid free speech never say a word about the horrendous human-rights record of China. They ignore strident Chinese expatriate student supporters on campus.

College deans who weigh in on global morality say nothing about Chinese gulags or crackdowns against Hong Kong.

Why are we becoming more like China than China is like us?

Trump correct, our ruling class wrong:

There wasn’t a single major Western politician who warned the world of a frightening, Chinese-dominated future — one in which the West turned into China rather than China into the West.
40

The single figure who finally issued such a warning, brash Donald Trump — without prior military or political experience — was as loudly and publicly damned as he was privately and quietly admired for doing so.

Political correctness and long practice at reality-avoidance has made our rulers (with few exceptions) stupid. It’s like the Emperor’s New Clothes, on issue after issue. Trump is the little boy who points out the obvious truth.

Let’s be honest about what a second Brexit referendum means

Let’s be honest about what a second Brexit referendum means, by Brendan O’Neill.

A second referendum would be a political abomination. And it’s about time more of us said so. …

If we have another referendum in which Remain is an option on the ballot paper, it will be the first time in the history of British democracy that the British people voted for something and it didn’t happen.

It will be the first time we made a clear, mass democratic choice and the political class turned around to us and said:

‘Sorry, you can’t have that. You have to vote again.’

The precedent this would set would be dreadful. It would rip up the democratic contract itself. It would rupture the bond that exists between the people and the political class — the bond that says that when we make a decision, they act upon it. Democracy cannot function if this bond is broken.

It is striking that the phrase ‘second referendum’ has largely fallen out of fashion. That’s because the politicians and campaigners who want another referendum recognise, at least instinctively, that they are doing something wrong. … And so some doublespeak phrases have been invented to disguise the deeply undemocratic and patronising nature of a second referendum. Some campaigners call it a ‘confirmatory vote’. Others call it a ‘People’s Vote’.

2016 referendum material from the UK government, with Britain the way the elites wish it was:

Permanent bureaucracy a mortal threat to America

Permanent bureaucracy a mortal threat to America, by Paul Bedard.

Anonymous efforts by anti-Trump federal bureaucrats to thwart the White House agenda through leaks and complaints to friendly reporters and congressional allies are a “mortal threat” to democracy and the 2016 election results, according to a top administration official [Stephen Miller]: …

“‘If you elect Hillary Clinton, then I’ll implement all of her policies very faithfully, and if I see massive evidence of corruption on Hillary Clinton’s part, they I’ll keep it all a secret. If you elect a candidate I disagree with, then I’ll lie, I’ll leak, I’ll cheat, I’ll smear, I’ll attack, I’ll persecute, and I will refuse to implement, and I will obstruct at every single step of the way.’” …

Miller added, “A lot of us thought, if you go back many years before Donald Trump ever declared for president, we might never live to see the day when somebody would have the audacity to promise to fundamentally change a broken status quo then get to Washington and proceed to execute on every single thing that he promised to do no matter what was thrown his way. It is truly a miracle to behold.”

Apartment owners fear for ‘suicidal’ neighbours as Australia’s combustible cladding crisis takes its toll

Apartment owners fear for ‘suicidal’ neighbours as Australia’s combustible cladding crisis takes its toll, by Tracy Bowden.

Owners of apartments affected by the cladding crisis in Victoria have told researchers of the emotional toll it has taken on them.

To cope with the financial stress, some owners have delayed their retirement, while others have borrowed money to cover massive increases in insurance premiums.

Others have told of their concerns for neighbours who may be at risk of suicide because of the impact of the issue. …

Dr Moore said residents also spoke of their concern about the range of other defects in apartments, including a lack of waterproofing and water ingress. …

The Victorian government has put $600 million towards a project to identify and replace dangerous cladding and has vowed to pursue dodgy builders who installed it.

Other states are less advanced, with concerns raised around the delay in action on the issue in NSW. …

The NSW government has previously advised councils to cite a terror risk to keep flammable cladding locations secret from the public. Many owners also fear the potential hit to the value of their investment, if its cladding status is made public.

A reader notes:

The consequences of
  • a huge multi-decade credit expansion by the banks, cheered on by the governments of both sides,
  • low-quality building standards being accepted by people as ok and regarded as normal. and
  • failure of governments to ensure proper oversight and certification of building processes (because they were too busy collecting stamp duty).
Now the whole of Australia will have to pay to clean the mess up. In a similar way to the banks making profits while their losses are socialised, the building industry and local governments have made money from this and the general population will have to pay for their shortsightedness and failure.

Australian aluminium smelter closures are economic and energy vandalism

Australian aluminum smelter closures are economic and energy vandalism. By Terry McCrann.

The now inevitable closure of Australia’s remaining aluminium smelters is not only a disaster for the economy, but an even bigger disaster for our national power grid and any hope of delivering cheaper and reliable electricity to both businesses and consumers. …

There were six smelters, but two closed (in 2012 and 2014). Rest to go soon.

As the CEO of the Tomago smelter in NSW, Matt Howell, pointed out last week, a smelter acted like a “big battery” to stabilise the network.

It is able to free up a lot, a lot, of power, at reasonably short notice and for an extended period like no Snowy hydro or Tesla “battery” could ever do.

Indeed, I would go further: a smelter and far better, a string of smelters would be the smartest, cheapest and most effective way to stabilise the grid. …

Making Australia poorer and dumber:

Broadly, 4-5 tonnes of bauxite gets turned into 2 tonnes of alumina, which gets turned into 1 tonne of aluminium.

Again, very broadly — prices obviously jump around — those 4-5 tonnes of bauxite would get you maybe $US300 ($450); the 2 tonnes of alumina would get you $US1000; but the 1 tonne of aluminium $US2200.

It makes a hell of a lot of — both business and national — sense to be selling the 1 tonne of aluminium.

Terry misses the main point: The smelters just close in Australian and re-open in China or the Philippines. The amount of electricity consumed, and the amount of carbon dioxide emitted, remain essentially unchanged — except for the emissions that go into building new smelters elsewhere, and the ongoing cost of shipping the bulky raw materials from Australia to China, instead of the more compact and lighter aluminum final product.

From a planetary emissions point of view it’s a loss: All it achieves is to move the carbon emissions off Australian’s national account and onto China’s, at the cost of greater emissions due to building new smelters and extra transport costs.

So, in terms of the stated goal of reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, closing the smelters is counter-productive. The process has become corrupt. Who benefits?

From a communist view point it’s a big win: Making white advanced countries poorer, and communist countries richer.

In Kyoto accounting and discussions of how Australia would cut emissions in the 1990s, closing the aluminum smelters was always target # 1.

Are Military Social Experiments Increasing Sexual Assaults on Men and Women?

Are Military Social Experiments Increasing Sexual Assaults on Men and Women? By the US Center for Military Readiness.

The Defense Department’s attempts to reduce sexual assaults in the military have failed. Annual reports tracking numbers of actual assaults on women and men show that the problem is getting worse every year with no end in sight.

Over 6,000 military men and women found it necessary to report sexual assaults through a confidential system (Restricted) or on the public record as part of legal action (Unrestricted).

Reality fails to conform to political correctness:

For decades, feminist social engineers, lawmakers, and high-level Pentagon officials promised that close combat assignments for women would reduce rates of sexual assaults. On the contrary, according to Defense Department data, the opposite has happened.

LGBT advocates also have insisted that their agenda is working well, but Figure 3 below, tracking annual percentages of sexual assaults on military men, shows a disturbing trend. Social policies that have ignored or tried to redefine human sexuality are weakening discipline, trust, and the careers of many senior leaders.

Julio Severo:

Young women have been victims of sexual male predators while young men have been victims of homosexual predators. …

The inclusion of women with men in the military service has been a disaster not only in the United States, but in Israel too. Despite distribution of free contraception, the number of legal abortions among Israel female soldiers rose. In 2018, the Israel Defense Forces performed 1,000 abortions in its female soldiers.

So the cost of the inclusion of women with men in the Israeli military has been increased sexual activity among themselves and the sacrifice of 1,000 innocent babies in 2018. …

In the socialist military paradise, which is never a paradise in real life, women and homosexual are equal to real men.

Expect apologies to conservative critics to begin soon.

How to fight wars has been a high priority for most societies for the last ten thousand tears. What works has been pretty well sorted out by now, by experiment and natural selection. But no, the PC people and the sexual revolutionaries know better — so more lives get ruined.

This is yet another instance of Robert Conquest’s first law of politics:

Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.

The conservatives knew best, from millennia of experience. But no, the PC people implemented some scheme they invented in the shower last Thursday, and overruled them.

By the way, Robert Conquest’s three laws are:

  1. Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
  2. Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
  3. The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of the enemies of the stated purpose of that bureaucracy.

Trump can’t possibly win re-election

Trump can’t possibly win re-election, by Lion of the Blogosphere. Some readers aren’t going to like this argument, but it’s reasonably well thought out out. It’s by an anti-PC commentator in NY with a good, but not perfect, record.

It doesn’t matter that the vast majority of people who voted for Trump in 2016 and who are still alive will vote for him again. It doesn’t matter that prole whites who loved him in 2016 still love him in 2020.

Trump’s strongest support comes from senior citizens. Senior citizens die, and their vote gets replaced with young people who are a lot less white and even among the whites they are a lot more liberal and lot more anti-Trump than their grandparents.

Trump supporters continuously underestimate the power of fakestream media propaganda. With 24/7 anti-Trump reporting for four years, I don’t see how any people who voted for Hillary in 2016 are going to vote for Trump in 2020. Trump’s success in 2016 came from flipping the prole whites who traditionally voted Democratic, but I don’t see any more of those voters flipping in 2020.

College educated white voters with above-average household incomes, who have traditionally voted Republican because Republicans give them lower taxes, have been trending away from the Republican Party for the last two decades, and this trend looks to accelerate more in 2020. I have called these Republicans nose-holders, they vote Republican for the lower taxes while holding their nose so they don’t smell the stink of Republican policies they disagree with. Every year, more of these people stop being single-issue voters on taxes and flip to the Democratic side. And in 2020, the stink of Trump will be extra-strong to these voters.

Polls show potential Democratic challengers like Warren, Sanders or Biden with a huge lead over Trump, and even if 2% of that lead is composed of “shy Trump voters” who will vote Trump in 2020, that’s not enough for Trump to surmount what the polls are telling us.

Right now the economy is as good as it’s going to get. It can only get worse as the juice from the Trump tax cuts for big corporations and the top 1% wears off. Plus, if you look away from the stock market indexes, the economy isn’t very good for young people who didn’t graduate from elite colleges.

There’s a good chance a recession or slow down will come in 2020, unless the monetary authorities manufacture money more aggressively (as Trump is urging).

On the other hand, Trump keeps surprising everyone. The shy anti-PC vote might grow beyond the 2% we’ve seen in most recent Western elections. Maybe well beyond.

What if we all deliberately misinformed pollsters about our voting intentions, by telling them we were going to vote for the PC/left party and then doing the opposite?

What if the polls in the next US presidential election said Warren was going to win by 5%, but the Democrats lost? Or if at the next Australian election the polls projected Labor/Greens were going to win by 5%, and they lost?

In ten years time, how safe and overconfident would the Labor Party feel going into an election with a 20% lead?

‘Princess Pushy go Home’ – Britain Tires of Meghan Markle

‘Princess Pushy go Home’ – Britain Tires of Meghan Markle, by James Delingpole.

Protected species, SJW princess, POC

Princess Pushy — aka former Suits actress Meghan Markle; aka the current Duchess of Sussex; aka Prince Harry’s missus — has been telling anyone who’ll listen how tough it is being a member of Britain’s Royal Family. …

Her popularity is tanking, she’s probably the second most bitterly divisive issue in Britain after Brexit, and if she carries on the way she’s going she could well finish off the job started in the 1930s by her fellow unsuitable American spouse Wallace Simpson and kill Britain’s Royal Family altogether. …

Why? Politically correct, identity politics:

One thing we love about our Queen is that she represents all of us. Because she keeps her mouth resolutely shut on contentious issues –- she’s much happier talking about horses, about which she knows a lot -– she has stayed above the fray of politics.

Princess Pushy, on the other hand, has charged into the most divisive issues of the day like a bull into a china shop –- especially regarding anything to do with identity politics.

She has, for example, spoken out publicly in favour of ‘decolonising the curriculum’ at universities: woke speak for ‘removing any remaining intellectual content from dumbed-down academe, replacing the pursuit of excellence with the usual rag bag of feminist and race-baiting grievances.’

Also her relentless quest for the cutting edge of woke has led her into some unforced errors which a better-advised royal would have avoided like the plague: promoting a charity cookbook raising funds for a notorious mosque with links to several terrorists; wading into the fraught sexual identity debate by apparently contemplating raising Archie in a ‘gender neutral’ manner; persuading her husband Harry that there’s a thing called ‘unconscious bias’ which secretly turns all white people into racists

Race:

Britain is not a racist country. Indeed, I think I speak for most of us when I say that we didn’t even know Meghan Markle was a ‘person of colour’ — she could easily pass for Hispanic or southern Italian — until the media kept banging on about it and turned her mixed-race background into such a defining issue.

In doing so, Markle has engendered an aura of racial tension about the Royal Family where none hitherto existed. …

Worse, she — and her unfortunate, emasculated husband — have developed the embarrassing habit of blaming all the criticism that Meghan gets on ‘racism.’ … If you criticise Meghan in any way, the SJW mob will try to shut you down with the “R” word.

SJW princess:

What we object to is being lectured by some random actress who only arrived in the country about ten minutes ago, yet now feels that because she’s married to Prince Charles’s younger son it’s her job to make us all think like politically correct Hollywood drones.

If Princess Pushy feels like she is being got at by Britain’s tabloid media — traditionally the Royal Family’s staunchest supporters — all she has to do is stop behaving like a Hollywood snowflake and start behaving like an actual British royal.

The left is currently politicizing everything. It’s too much, far too much.

The Rottenness of Politics is Currently Increasing

The Rottenness of Politics is Currently Increasing, by the Z-Man.

This past week, so-called liberals …  have all but called Tulsi Gabbard a dirty hippy for her support for a withdraw from the never-ending Middle East theater.

It really is incredible to watch the assault on Gabbard. Her position on foreign policy is what we were told was the mainstream of the Democrat party. Even before Bush and the neocons bankrupted the nation on pointless wars of choice, the America Left was anti-intervention. They were the side that argued for multi-lateral talks and negotiated settlements to disputes. For eight years Obama preached this line, as he cut deals with Iran and allegedly pulled troops out of the Iraq disaster.

Now, politics is about lying, so lying about past positions, even if those positions were held just an hour ago, is nothing new. The game is to attack an opponent for their lack of purity at the moment, thus elevating yourself. When Hillary Clinton attacked Gabbard as a Russian asset, it was about trying to rehabilitate Clinton, at the expense of Gabbard, not about the facts as presented. Clinton is worried that the investigation into her 2016 election shenanigans may leave her holding the bag. …

In other words, we don’t have a media in modern America. What we have are amplifiers of the party line.

Don’t laugh. The rest of the West usually copies US trends soon enough.

PC Fantasy Crumbling: Merkel says German multiculturalism has failed

PC Fantasy Crumbling: Merkel says German multiculturalism has failed, by Sabine Siebold.

Germany’s attempt to create a multicultural society has “utterly failed,” Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Saturday, adding fuel to a debate over immigration and Islam polarizing her conservative camp.

Merkel smiles for dominant immigrant

The romance is over

Speaking to a meeting of young members of her Christian Democrats (CDU), Merkel said allowing people of different cultural backgrounds to live side by side without integrating had not worked in a country that is home to some four million Muslims.

This (multicultural) approach has failed, utterly failed,” Merkel told the meeting in Potsdam, south of Berlin. …

The debate over foreigners in Germany has shifted since former central banker Thilo Sarrazin published a book accusing Muslim immigrants of lowering the intelligence of German society. Sarrazin was censured for his views and dismissed from the Bundesbank, but his book proved highly popular and polls showed a majority of Germans agreed with the thrust of his arguments. …

Horst Seehofer, chairman of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the CDU’s sister party, has rejected any relaxation of immigration laws and said last week there was no room in Germany for more people from “alien cultures.”

Germany, where PC myths go to die:

  • Communism — The Berlin Wall fell in 1989.
  • Renewable energy — Energy poverty sets in first in Germany.
  • Mulitculti — Regret over the million Muslim immigrants admitted.

Britain Stands on the Brink of Brexit Victory

Britain Stands on the Brink of Brexit Victory, by James Delingpole.

No, I don’t mean Boris Johnson’s new deal, which may or may not prevail.

I mean that the British people’s fury with the shenanigans of the liberal elite has reached such a pitch that nothing — neither the police nor our rule-makers nor our bent, parti-pris judiciary — is capable of stopping us prevailing in the end.

A sign:

For evidence, look no further than the glorious scenes at Canning Town Station in East London this week, when a sickly-looking pair of Extinction Rebellion milquetoasts were yanked from on top of a Tube train carriage by angry commuters and told exactly where they could shove their green revolution. …

We do, however, know the identity of at least one of the tofu-munching gimps who thought it would be a good idea to stop thousands of commuters getting to work that morning by preventing their transport from leaving the station.

His name is Mark Ovland and he’s a Buddhist teacher.

No, wait, scrub that. He’s even more useless than that. Mark Ovland is an ex-Buddhist teacher.

Ovland used to have a non-job.

Now he has given up even his non-job to become a full time climate protestor, which isn’t so much of a non-job as an anti-job: it doesn’t merely fail to add much to the economy, like his Buddhist teaching non-job did; it actively steals from the economy by preventing people from earning a living and creating value and trying to give their kids a better future.

But what does any of this have to do with Brexit?

It has EVERYTHING to do with Brexit.

The clash between hard-working, honest, decent wage-earners on the one hand, and work-shy, pampered, over-“educated”, lefty eco-activist parasites on the other is the embodiment of the clash of cultures which led to Brexit.

If you had to draw a Venn diagram of Extinction Rebellion supporters and people who voted Remain, you wouldn’t get two overlapping circles — you’d get one circle with both pretty much sitting on top of each other.

Extinction Rebellion is Remain; Remain is Extinction Rebellion.

That’s because Remain was never really about Britain’s membership of the European Union any more than Extinction Rebellion is really about saving the planet. …

Our ruling class, the clerisy:

The clerisy is that entitled, educated, middle-class liberal elite which has become increasingly dominant in Britain and elsewhere — the U.S., for example, suffers exactly same problem — since the turn of the Millennium.

This liberal elite is at once a parasite and an oppressor. Not only does it feel that it is owed a generous living, regardless of what it actually contributes to the economy. But it also believes that by dint of its education it has the right to tell the rest of the population how it should behave, talk, even think.

One of the things that these liberal elites have in common across the West is their passionate belief in bigger government.

They have to believe in bigger government because their livings often depend on it. …

Extinction Rebellion, though it professes to be anti-Establishment, embodies the left-liberal values of the current Establishment hegemony.

That’s why rarely, if ever, will you hear anyone in government criticising Extinction Rebellion’s ideology, only its methods. …

Patience with the ruling class fools is wearing thin:

Grudging tolerance has gradually given way to a simmering sense of injustice: “How can it be”, ordinary folk have started to wonder, “that these privileged wanktards with their pointless degrees in Environmental Sciences and Advanced Poi are free to build pyramids at Oxford Circus and block Westminster Bridge when if I tried it I’d get myself chucked in jail?”

That simmering sense of injustice is now erupting into acts of rebellion — real rebellion, not Extinction Rebellion’s state-protected faux-rebellion — like the one in Canning Town Station. …

My take home from all this isn’t that it’s all about to kick off and that Britain is about to erupt in gilets-jaunes type violence.

Rather, it’s simply that the longer Brexit has been delayed by the corrupt, failing Establishment, the more we Brexiteers have become aware that we are the majority, that we’re the ones with both justice and common sense on our side, and that we’re not going to take no for an answer.

China’s Looming Class Struggle

China’s Looming Class Struggle, by Joel Kotkin.

[China’s] remarkable growth has come at the expense of China’s supposedly egalitarian ethos. Since 1978 the country’s GINI ratings — a system that measures inequality — have gone from highly egalitarian to more unequal than Mexico, Brazil, and Kenya, as well as the United States and virtually all of Europe. In avowedly socialist China, roughly 1300 individuals constitute roughly 20 percent of the country’s wealth, and top one percent roughly one-third. …

Overall, two-thirds of all Chinese are either migrant laborers, peasants, industrial workers, or agriculture laborers—all groups unlikely to make it into the Chinese middle class by Chinese standards …

The much-vaunted Chinese middle class is almost entirely a phenomenon of those with urban [resident permits], while the 40 percent of the population in the countryside struggles. …

Grew rich exploiting the proletariat:

Chinese migrants unable to claim residency in the city generally lack access to education, healthcare, and most forms of insurance. Although they perform many of the most dangerous tasks in society, notably manufacturing and construction, barely one in four has any form of insurance if they get injured. But they are largely excluded from other, less dangerous jobs.

China, notes Li Sun, may be “the world’s factory,” but much of the work is performed by these largely unprotected migrants — a million work for Foxconn, the manufacture of iPhone, alone. China’s great wealth derives, she points out, from a “worker-made” economy of people who labor 60-hour weeks for barely US$63 a week pay, reprising the role played for millennia by peasants, who provided the wealth of the Middle Kingdom but benefited little from it. …

Class revolts have often occurred in China:

This vast class of poor and often powerless migrants, peasants, and factory workers represents a far greater threat to the Chinese regime than isolated intellectuals on the mainland or even the brave protesters in Hong Kong…

Chinese history consists largely of an interplay between hierarchical regimes and occasionally rebellious peasants. The most serious uprising took place during the 1843 Taiping rebellion against the Manchu dynasty, which resulted in the deaths of upwards of 20 million people. Some of the Taiping program would later be adopted by Sun Yat-Sen, who would overthrow the imperial regime, and by the Communists in their successful drive to power.

Today, however, it’s the Communists who are the new Manchus, running a well-honed bureaucratic regime allied to a powerful capitalist class. Rather than rule by proletarians and peasants, the leadership is increasingly dominated by so-called “red princelings,” such as President Xi himself, who trace their roots to generals and top officials of the initial Maoist regime. Even the entrepreneurial class, a force for reform in many cultures, has been subsumed by the Communist Mandarins. Some 90 percent of China’s millionaires, notes Australian political scientist David Goodman, are the offspring of high-ranking officials.

This alliance with the Communists extends to the far more populous and well-established professional and managerial classes, which staffs the bureaucracies of the all-powerful party-dominated state.4 Goodman suggests that, rather than run to the barricades, these fortunate individuals would likely oppose any democratic transition that could allow the less privileged masses to threaten their status. Even those students who study in the United States and elsewhere in the West tend to support the existing system, as it will benefit them when they return. …

Ultimately, finding ways to accommodate the rumbling of the working class and the peasantry may be the only way China’s rulers can avoid the fate of their feudal and Nationalist predecessors. The contradiction between the regime’s egalitarian rhetoric and the social reality is simply too great to ignore without threatening the existence of the system itself.

“Toe The Line Or Be Destroyed”: Tulsi Gabbard Dismantles Establishment ‘Hit-Job’ In Viral Video

“Toe The Line Or Be Destroyed”: Tulsi Gabbard Dismantles Establishment ‘Hit-Job’ In Viral Video. By Tyler Durden.

Last week, Clinton told Democratic operative and podcast host David Plouffe that “Russians” were “grooming” a female Democratic candidate — clearly referring to Gabbard. …

“She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.” …

Tulsi hit back, tweeting to Hillary:

Great! Thank you Hillary Clinton,” Gabbard tweeted late on Friday afternoon. “You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.

‘Bout time. The influence of Alinskyite and corrupt Hillary Clinton on the Democrats has been profound. She destroyed the mainstream left party in the US for normal people, radicalizing it to the point of danger with its anti-white, anti-male, pro-third-world-immigration and excessively pro-big-government policies and rhetoric, all the while enriching herself and her cronies. To say nothing of what happened to her opponents.