The partisan divide now dwarfs demographic differences on key political values

The partisan divide now dwarfs demographic differences on key political values, by Abigail Geiger. From the Pew Research Center, on US research in 2017.

Two decades ago, the average partisan differences on [10 political values] were only slightly wider than differences by religious attendance or educational attainment, and about as wide as differences across racial lines. Today, the partisan gaps far exceed differences across other key demographics.

The PC fantasy-land stuff on the left is increasing the gulf between the left and the rest on so many issues now.

Why should we hire women?

Why should we hire women? By Anonymous. A long post on an incendiary issue as society comes to a turning point.

The #metoo hashtag … movement is about speaking out against sexual harassment … It´s like poverty or living an unhappy life — nobody is actually promoting poverty or living unhappy. …

There are however two big problems with the whole situation:

  1. Accusations alone kill careers and businesses just through the media attention and absence from any investigation or evidence
  2. The narrative of the whole debate is that every claim must be believed  —  regardless how ridiculous the claim itself is and that any questioning of this or that people want an investigation is automatically anti female.

These two social justice paradigms have made it impossible to defend anybody against accusations …

Another problem is that the meaning of sexual harassment was widened to include what most of us would consider normal behavior among adults. This includes but is not limited to: getting invited for a drink, making somebody a compliment or standing in the same room.

This paints almost any interaction at a workplace in a sexualized context which in turn makes it almost impossible to be comfortable with each other. This has a major chilling effect on teamwork, arbitration and general communication. …

“If you make any women in any way uncomfortable” then you are doing something wrong and support harassment…

James Damore spoke truths that made some women uncomfortable:

When James Damore was asked for feedback from his supervisor and internally circulated his google memo, it got leaked, he got fired and women stayed at home the next day because “for emotional reasons”

A ten page summary of data and analysis from Damore was enough to “emotional distress” the women at the company.

I’m not arguing here about the validity of the memo — we can talk about that on a separate occasion — my point here is that a ten-page document with written words that suggested possible gender differences cost multiple sick days!

Where does this leave men?

Right now the message of #metoo to men is very clear:

  • As a man, you are automatically a possible rapist
  • As a man, it is automatically harassment if you make women uncomfortable in any way
  • And if you say anything against that then you are just some misogynistic a**hole that doesn’t want women to succeed or have their freedom

So what are men doing in response? The author owns a business and talked to some of his friends:

“We will probably not hire women if they have to work together with men” (paraphrased) …

“We have to consider gender segregation at the workplace as a next step so we hire women only for positions where we can make a team out of them and where we have to hire a spot in the male-dominated parts we hire additional men” (paraphrased) …

“We are considering to drop our female staffers in the non-support teams, this way we can eliminate the risk and from the outside, it looks like we just have a 90/10 split which is low but not unreasonable for a tech company” (paraphrased)

I have to say it makes perfect sense when I heard their reasoning… Even an unproven or false allegation can cost a company a significant sum of money! For some businesses it could even mean bankruptcy because clients could drop them, they can’t bear the expensive legal fees or the media outrage kills their reputation.

And I don’t know anyone who is willing to take that kind of risk.

Adding to that the risk of possible pregnancy, that some call for sick leave when they have their period and the whole depiction of women in the mainstream media — and you have the perfect mix for “high risk, high cost, low reward” (actual quote) …

Now you have to understand here, these are not people that don’t want women to succeed. They are not bigots or misogynistic pigs! Some of what you read was said by women. These are people that have their own business, they feel responsible for everybody to provide a good work atmosphere, to pay good salaries and they take responsibility for everybody under their roof. …

It’s like a return to the old ways, before the 1960s:

Maybe we do need gender-segregated workplaces…

A lot of young men are pissed — in my view totally justified — and the media could start a 4-week apology tour and it wouldn’t bring anything anymore… The damage is done!

A lot of men I know even in their private lives shifted in the last years from “I want to help women” to “I don’t care anymore”. This applies especially to young men in their 20´s but also older veterans and older women that could be great mentors. …

Movements like MGTOW get more and more members & momentum and everytime women say “men are the problem — get with the program” they annihilate more men for their side and push them to see women just as rivals.

Glenn Reynolds:

Feminists used to mock Victorian ideas about the fragility of women. Now they embody them.

Per Desteen:

This is why a sole proprietor or small partnership is a far better way of doing business.

You can manage to avoid hiring females if you stay small. The only other thing that I’ve seen that works is to have only one woman working in the office, preferably an older woman. More than one and the claws come out. …

Men built civilization because their biological ability to cooperate with other men to achieve a greater result than they could alone increases everyone involved’s status and resources, and those resources were apportioned by their effort, mental or physical. Women destroy civilization because their biological ability to apportion those resources is solely related to their derived status, and resources are divided based on that status, not effort.

Replace civilization with any word, like work, business, etc. Women devolve to mud huts and grass skirts, because they can’t cooperate with other women but must always compete with them as if everything is a zero sum game.

Don’t hire women. Work for yourself. Men know that life is not a zero sum game.

The talk of zero sum games based on status, versus positive sum games where only results and effort count, are redolent of socialism versus capitalism.


I too am tired, so tired, of the drama from women, from minorities, from immigrants, from SJWs. I want to live my life without their demands on me. I don’t make demands on them. If a homosexual wants to discriminate against me, he can. If a woman doesn’t want to hire me, she can. If a Mexican doesn’t want me in his restaurant, just say the word. If a Black doesn’t want to put any White actors on his TV show, don’t.

My only demand is to leave me the hell alone. …

Every single woman comes with litigation risk because every single woman falls under the category of “protected identity.” This means that every single woman has the power, if she chooses to use it, to accuse you and ruin your life, a power that men do not have under law. You are categorically safer to hire a White man than you are a woman, a racial minority or a sexual freak.

Substitute “mass murderer” for “woman” and you may see the problem. That mass murderer doesn’t kill every single person he comes across in his daily life, so most people are safe in his presence. Ted Bundy didn’t kill everyone, just some people. So, within the group of mass murderers there will be people who will kill you and some who won’t. The problem here is not identifying which will kill you and which won’t, the safe play is to not have mass murderers in your presence, thereby taking yourself off their potential target list.

The First Anti-American President

The First Anti-American President, by Michael Ledeen.

Barack Obama will no doubt be chronicled, among other things, as the first anti-American president. No wonder; he’s the product of an educational system that has become increasingly radical and anti-American with each passing decade, and his mother was a stereotypical leftist anthropologist with a passion for the Third World.

The pattern is unmistakable. As Luis Fleischman notes, Obama wanted to make deals with our enemies, Iran being the most dramatic example. …


There is no confusion about the nature of the Iranian regime or its intent to develop nuclear attack weapons or its savage repression of seventy-plus million people who would undoubtedly enter the ranks of the West if they could. But if we do not directly challenge the regime, no one else is going to do it. …

There are many protests in Iran today, and the Khamenei/Rouhani regime has responded by executing half as many Iranians as in the past. We should relentlessly expose this mass murder, and we should publicize the ongoing protests.

The target audience for such exposes is the great mass of the population. Paradoxically, Iranians are better informed about events in Jerusalem and Washington than in Iranian Kurdistan, the southern oil regions, and cities like Mashad and Qom.

All Iranians need this information, which shows them that they are not alone. The technology for such a campaign exists. It is the same as it was when we deployed it against the Soviet Union with such powerful consequences: our broadcasting network, starting with the Voice of America. Today, Farsi-language VOA is often a vehicle for anti-American polemics, since personnel is virtually unchanged from the Obama years.

Iraq: Time to let go

Iraq: Time to let go. By David Archibald.

Iraq has a lot of wars, mostly of its own choosing. …

Its population is up fivefold in two generations. Population growth is galloping along at 3.4 percent per annum, which means that Iraq’s population is doubling every 21 years. Much the same is true of the rest of the Middle East. The newly created population doesn’t have anything useful to do, such as growing food. The countries of the Middle East are at the limit of their potential agricultural output, and imported grain keeps the process going.

This situation can’t go on forever and so won’t. Nobody can describe a pleasant way that this situation can end, though. We can withdraw from Iraq from time to time, but everyone acknowledges that the situation in Afghanistan will revert to what it was pre-2001 almost immediately when we pull out. …

To stay in the Middle East is to own the problem of what happens when the region’s population growth is halted by a starvation event. When that happens, we want to be able to keep eating bacon on our ketogenic diets rather than ship off grain on a fool’s errand.

Parent of ‘Transgender’ Teen Warns: ‘We Have to Fight This Radical Movement’

Parent of ‘Transgender’ Teen Warns: ‘We Have to Fight This Radical Movement’, by Susan Berry.

The parent of a teen girl who is “transitioning” to become a boy is urging the increasing number of families coping with the radical transgender movement to fight back rather than succumb to its ideology.

“It took us completely by surprise,” Kristie Sisson told Breitbart News in an interview. “Because Danielle had a normal childhood, did all of the typical girl things – from dressing up like the princesses, to playing with dolls, to wearing make-up, perfume, and jewelry.”

Sisson says that, in the fall of 2016, just weeks before her daughter – then a high school senior – told her parents she was going to start to dress like a boy, she had taken her daughter shopping for school clothes, and Danielle had chosen girl’s clothing. …

Sisson says she noticed Danielle was often “mimicking” other people her age. For example, she says Danielle became good friends with a girl who was a lesbian, and, shortly afterward, told her parents she herself was a lesbian. Then, she became friends with a gender-confused girl who said she was transgender. …

“I have three sons, so I know the difference between a girl’s psyche and a boy’s,” says Sisson, noting that there was never a question in their family that Danielle was “all girl.”

Nevertheless, Sisson acknowledges her daughter may have suffered from depression and specifically points to the parents’ concern that, when Danielle was in elementary school, she had a music teacher who was later convicted of sexual misconduct with students. …

“We later found out Danielle was spending a lot of time in the school’s ‘safe space’ for students who identify with the LGBT community,” she continues. “I found out she had joined a fraternity for transgender and gay men. So, she had completely immersed herself in this transgender world.” …

The world against the parents:

While visiting Long Island relatives for Thanksgiving, Sisson says Danielle would not discuss her situation with her parents, who ultimately told her they would not continue to pay her tuition if she would not speak with them about their concerns. …

Sisson said she and her husband were subsequently labeled as “awful parents” who are “transphobic” and “homophobic” on various websites as Danielle’s story spread. The public rush to affirm Danielle’s decision to become a boy had driven a further wedge between her and her parents.

Eventually, Danielle set up a GoFundMe campaign, raising over $10,000 in only eight hours. Her friends from middle and high school and college contributed to her fund, as did friends of her brother. She also reportedly received a $5,000 anonymous donation. Though her campaign is currently closed, Danielle ultimately raised $13,210 for her tuition and medical “transition” expenses. …

“There are so many parents like me — the same identical story,” Sisson says, noting the website 4thWaveNow and other online support groups for parents whose children decide they are transgender and then move quickly into hormone treatments and even surgeries.

“It’s very easy for these kids to get the hormones and start taking testosterone,” she says, noting that Planned Parenthood now administers the hormones.

“I feel like it’s the parents against the world,” the mother continues. “The therapists, the doctors, the schools – everyone is pushing this very liberal agenda and this transgender movement, and it’s harming our children.”

“Danielle is going to end up mutilating her body,” she laments. “She wants to have a mastectomy. She wants to have a hysterectomy.” …

The professionals mainly say it is just a trendy phase:

“According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty,” the [American College of Pediatricians] adds. “Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.”

Similarly, the self-described “left-leaning,” pro-LGBT rights association, Youth Gender Professionals, asserts it is risky to affirm young people who claim to be transgender and provide them with hormonal and surgical treatments to change their bodies.

“Our concern is with medical transition for children and youth,” they write. “We feel that unnecessary surgeries and/or hormonal treatments which have not been proven safe in the long-term represent significant risks for young people.”

The organization’s members say they are alarmed that many immature teenagers are deciding they are a member of the opposite sex simply as a result of “binges” on social media sites.

“There is evidence that vulnerable young people are being actively recruited and coached on such sites to believe that they are trans,” the professionals say. …

Sisson explains her reaction as a parent:

“It’s very hard because there are many doctors and therapists who will not voice their concerns against it,” she observes. “They’re going along with it because they fear for their jobs and their lives. Even teachers are being punished for referring to transgender students as the wrong pronoun.”

“It has to stop,” Sisson asserts. “We have to come together as parents and not fall for this liberal agenda.”

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Migrants Who Lie About Being Refugees Can Now Stay in the UK, Court Rules

Migrants Who Lie About Being Refugees Can Now Stay in the UK, Court Rules, by Liam Deacon.

Albanian criminals who pretended to be Kosovan refugees have been allowed to stay in the UK after a Supreme Court judgement revealed a “loophole in the law”.

The migrants’ court victory is expected to cost the taxpayer £1 million and thousands more could now be allowed to stay, even if they have committed serious crimes. …

Mr. Hysaj was exposed as having lied when he was jailed for five years in 2011 after glassing a man in a pub in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire. …

The Supreme Court judges last week ruled that because the men had not stolen anyone’s identity but instead made up a fictional character, “neither appellant pretended to be someone he was not”.

Assimilation begins with entry: lying for a PC cause or your own advantage is ok!

‘Jane Bond?’: Prime Minister Calls for Woman to Portray Iconic Playboy Spy

‘Jane Bond?’: Prime Minister Calls for Woman to Portray Iconic Playboy Spy, by Virginia Hale.

Fictional Cold War warrior James Bond should be played by a woman, Theresa May has said, hailing the new female Doctor Who as a victory for “girl power”. …

Famed for his womanising, hard drinking, and explosive action sequences, James Bond has been played by seven male actors, from Sean Connery to Daniel Craig since 1962.

A PC person argues for their fantasy to justify lying:

The BBC figure [Doctor Who’s outgoing head writer Steven Moffat] also claimed that television producers have a responsibility to portray a “better” version of British history in which the country was populated with millions of non-white people.

“We’ve kind of got to tell a lie. We’ll go back into history and there will be black people where, historically, there wouldn’t have been, and we won’t dwell on that.

“We’ll say, ‘To hell with it, this is the imaginary, better version of the world. By believing in it, we’ll summon it forth’,” said Moffat, speaking to BBC journalists about positive discrimination.

A reader writes:

This awful woman epitomises everything that is wrong with once great Britain.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

The Boat People of Bethlehem

The Boat People of Bethlehem, by Peter Smith.

You may have noticed the recent propaganda in support of the West absorbing unlimited numbers of Muslim refugees. It starts with the Bible and with Matthew 2:13-23 were it is told that Joseph, Mary and their children escaped to Egypt from Bethlehem in Judaea for fear of King Herod. Only when the King was dead did they return to Israel; settling in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, because they remained wary of Herod’s son who ruled in Judaea.

Thus, so the story goes, Jesus was for a time a time a refugee in Egypt. A tenuous and tendentious leap of logic follows: if Jesus was indeed a refugee how can anyone in good conscience not welcome all refugees with open arms and generous hearts.

As an example, here is Martin O’Malley – the ex-governor of Maryland and short-lived competitor with Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president – talking with Fox News front man Tucker Carlson. “Remember Jesus too was a refugee child. What would you do if he came to your border?”

I liked Carlson’s reply: “That’s so stupid, it’s hard to respond.” …

Let’s be clear. Some people whose values have messed up their own villages want to live in our prosperous and harmonious villages. They want to bring with them the same values responsible for creating the mess from which they are attempting to escape. They want to impose those values on us.

And the Archbishop and other Christian leaders think that’s OK? They think that the reported sojourn of Jesus in Egypt is a parallel situation? It’s funny to me, in any event, that those Christians making (specious and one-sided) inter-faith overtures to Muslims take one part of Matthew as gospel, while preferring to conveniently overlook passages referring to false prophets; among whom surely Muhammed is the doozy.

Abject appeasement and false reasoning is now the face of Christian leadership. Nothing good will come of it. It’s part of a debilitating multicultural malaise that has overtaken our politics and media.

It’s best to remember that barbarians take on a veneer of restraint when opposed by superior forces. Watch out as the balance of populations and power shifts. I doubt bishops will do too well. Beheadings in public squares? No, they’ll convert. After all, one god is as good as another when minds are conflicted by doubt, Sharia and Jesus rotting in his grave.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Victoria Police chief forced to admit African youth gangs a problem

Victoria Police chief forced to admit African youth gangs a problem, by Pia Akerman.

“The leaders in the African community readily and openly say they do have issues with a small cohort of African youth who are committing high-end crimes,” [Acting chief commissioner Shane Patton] said.

“We acknowledge that, we don’t shy away from that at all. We will target anyone who’s involved in any criminal activity and if that’s African youths, so be it.”

Mr Patton said although only one arrest had been made, police were still pursuing other offenders among the group of more than 100 mainly South Sudanese youths who trashed a Werribee Airbnb-rented property last week and then pelted officers with rocks.

Mere lip service, bowing to popular pressure because too many people can see the obvious. Look at these mixed messages as they switch from denial to now having to acknowledge the undeniable:

While discussing the incident this week, Superintendent Therese Fitzgerald rejected suggestions of a crime problem among African youths, saying the problem was “youth crime in general”.

Police Minister Lisa Neville yesterday confirmed African-born young men were over­represented in crime statistics and were causing “great harm and fear in the community”.

“I am not trying to cover this up,” Ms Neville said. “It has been of significant concern to us and to Victoria Police.

Even the police began to sit up and take notice.

Might something be learned from studying African culture and similar groups elsewhere? Or are the PC police going to insist that everyone is the same and the Melbourne problem is just like any other bunch of youths, like in say nineteenth century London?

When and Why the West Began to ‘Demonize’ Muhammad

When and Why the West Began to ‘Demonize’ Muhammad, by Raymond Ibrahim.

Unfortunately, not only do all discussions on the conflict between Islam and the West tend to be limited to the modern era, but when the past, the origins, are alluded to, the antithesis of reality is proffered: we hear that the West — itself an anachronism for Europe, or better yet, Christendom — began the conflict by intentionally demonizing otherwise peaceful and tolerant Muslims and their prophet in order to justify their “colonial” aspirations in the East, which supposedly began with the Crusades. …

That nothing could be further from the truth is an understatement. From the very first Christian references to Muslims in the seventh century, to Pope Urban’s call to the First Crusade more than four centuries later, the “Saracens” and their prophet were consistently abhorred.

Thus, writing around 650, John of Nikiu, Egypt, said that “Muslims” — the Copt is apparently the first non-Muslim to note that word — were not just “enemies of God” but adherents of “the detestable doctrine of the beast, that is, Mohammed.” The oldest parchment that alludes to a warlike prophet was written in 634 — a mere two years after Muhammad’s death. It has a man asking a learned Jewish scribe what he knows about “the prophet who has appeared among the Saracens.” The elderly man, “with much groaning,” responded: “He is deceiving. For do prophets come with swords and chariot? Verily, these events of today are works of confusion…. you will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed.” …

But it was Muhammad himself — the fount of Islam — who especially scandalized Christians: “The character and the history of the Prophet were such as genuinely shocked them; they were outraged that he should be accepted as a venerated figure.” Then and now, nothing so damned Muhammad in Christian eyes as much as his own biography, written and venerated by Muslims. For instance, after proclaiming that Allah had permitted Muslims four wives and unlimited concubines (Koran 4:3), he later declared that Allah had delivered a new revelation (Koran 33:50-52) offering him, the prophet alone, a dispensation to sleep with and marry as many women as he wanted. In response, none other than his favorite wife, Aisha, the “Mother of Believers,” quipped: “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.” …

Even around 700 AD people were saying the obvious:

The only miracle Muhammad performed, they argued, was to invade, slaughter, and enslave those who refused to submit to him — a “miracle that even common robbers and highway bandits can perform.”

The prophet clearly put whatever words best served him in God’s mouth, thus “simulating revelation in order to justify his own sexual indulgence”; he made his religion appealing and justified his own behavior by easing the sexual and moral codes of the Arabs and fusing the notion of obedience to God with war to aggrandize oneself with booty and slaves. …

Muhammad was “the beast”:

Perhaps most importantly, Muhammad’s denial of and war on all things distinctly Christian — the Trinity, the resurrection, and “the cross, which they abominate” — proved for Christians that he was Satan’s agent. In short, “the false prophet,” “the hypocrite,” “the liar,” “the adulterer,” “the forerunner of Antichrist,” and “the Beast,” became mainstream epithets for Muhammad among Christians for over a thousand years, beginning in the late seventh century.

Indeed, for politically correct or overly sensitive peoples who find any criticism of Islam “Islamophobic,” the sheer amount and vitriolic content of more than a millennium of Western writings on Muhammad may beggar belief. …

In short, the widespread narrative that European views of Muhammad as a “sinister figure,” a “cruel warlord,” and a “lecher and sexual pervert” began as a pretext to justify the late eleventh century Crusade — which itself is the source of all woes between Islam and the West — is an unmitigated lie. The sooner more people in the West understand this — understand the roots of the animosity — the sooner the true nature of the current (or rather ongoing) conflict will become clear.

The West is in a struggle for survival but our ruling class don’t understand that.

hat-tip Scott of the Pacific, Stephen Neil

Robert Mugabe exits with mansion, staff, first-class travel

Robert Mugabe exits with mansion, staff, first-class travel, by Aislinn Laing.

Robert Mugabe has been given a lavish retirement package that includes first-class air travel, a multimillion-dollar mansion, private health insurance and numerous staff.

Zimbabwe’s ousted president will also have a fully staffed private office, bodyguards and chauffeur-driven cars likely to cost the impoverished country tens of thousands of dollars each year.

His wife, Grace, whose corruption and venality was blamed for bringing about the collapse of her 93-year-old husband’s career, will be allowed to keep most of the perks after he dies. …

Yesterday the chief of the armed forces who led the military takeover was sworn in as deputy to President Mnangagwa. … Several senior military figures have been given prominent roles in cabinet, prompting dismay because Mr Mnangagwa had promised a clean sweep after Mr Mugabe’s long rule.

Critics said that Mr Mugabe’s retirement package was a further sign that nothing had changed, and that it would ultimately benefit Mr Mnangagwa too.

Editor’s criticism of Milo Yiannopoulos book revealed

Editor’s criticism of Milo Yiannopoulos book revealed, by The Australian.

The former editors of Milo Yiannopoulos’ autobiography Dangerous described the contents of his book as “egotistical boasting,” “ self-aggrandisement” and “self-serving,” and criticised his arguments as “scattershot thinking,” and “phenomenally petty,” court documents have revealed.

Mr Yiannopoulos is suing Simon & Schuster for breach of contract after the publisher, which had paid him a $34,500 advance for the rights to the book, cancelled the deal after a recording emerged which appeared to show the alt-right commentator endorsing sex with “younger boys”.

As part of their case, the publisher has submitted documents to the court which show they had a multitude of problems with the book, including Mr Yiannopoulos “repeating Fake News,” and “trolling.”

In a sworn affidavit, editor Mitchell Ivers said that he and his colleagues at the publisher were “disappointed with the work” that Mr Yiannopoulos submitted at the beginning of last year. “It was not the serious and substantial commentary on free speech and political correctness that we discussed,” he said. “Instead, it was a superficial reworking of Mr Yiannopoulos’ various speeches where he fed one-liners to crowds and made incendiary comments.”

It was also “riddled with highly offensive commentary and ‘jokes’ that were distractions and many would see as racist, misogynist, anti-immigrant, antisemitic or homophobic,” he said.

If the affidavit is scathing, Mr Ivers’ notes on the draft manuscript are even harsher, including criticism that Mr Yiannopoulos’ only argument against feminists is “that they are ugly and sexless and have cats,” and: “If you want to make a case for gay men going back into the closet … you’re going to have to employ a lot more intellectual rigour than you use here.”

If the affidavit is scathing, Mr Ivers’ notes on the draft manuscript are even harsher, including criticism that Mr Yiannopoulos’ only argument against feminists is “that they are ugly and sexless and have cats,” and: “If you want to make a case for gay men going back into the closet … you’re going to have to employ a lot more intellectual rigour than you use here.” …

Mr Yiannopoulos eventually self-published his book in July.

Sounds like the editors at Simon and Schuster are PC, finding anti-PC remarks to be insubstantial, silly, untrue, unfunny, racist, sexist, etc etc. Simon and Schuster no doubt had considerable pressure put on them not to publish Milo’s book by the establishment (probably largely the friends in their social and professional circles), because Milo was a rising star of anti-PC speech.

The culture ware of PC fantasy versus realism rolls on.

In wake of Matt Lauer’s firing, NBC reportedly cracks down on hugging, asks employees to tell on each other

In wake of Matt Lauer’s firing, NBC reportedly cracks down on hugging, asks employees to tell on each other, by Emily Jashinsky.

Matt Lauer’s years of alleged sexual harassment went unpunished until this November when NBC dismissed him after a former intern came forward with disturbing accusations. Now, amid questions surrounding what the network knew about Lauer’s conduct and when, NBC has reportedly instituted strict new rules governing workplace behavior. …

The source also informed Page Six that “staffers have been told that if they find out about any affairs, romances, inappropriate relationships or behavior in the office, they have to report it to human resources, their superior or the company anti-harassment phone line.”

To take it to the next level, the source further claimed NBC’s new rules stipulate employees wishing to hug one another “have to do a quick hug, then an immediate release, and step away to avoid body contact” and are forbidden from sharing taxis home or, oddly, “taking vegans to steakhouses.”

Steve Sailer:

In 1984, Winston Smith’s girlfriend Julia is a member of the Junior Anti-Sex League. …

I really wouldn’t want to have to snitch on office romances, but the anti-hugging jihad is appealing, and while I’m not a vegan, I don’t like steak houses as much as they cost, so this seems like not a bad set of trade-offs.

Trump and Obama similar popularity after one year, despite ground-breaking bias from US media

Trump and Obama similar popularity after one year, despite ground-breaking bias from US media, by Abigail Geiger.

News stories about President Trump’s first 60 days in office offered far more negative assessments than they did of prior administrations.


Anti-Muslim “Diversity Bollards” Are No Substitute for a Border Wall

Anti-Muslim “Diversity Bollards” Are No Substitute for a Border Wall, by John Derbyshire.

Having won the Presidency on a promise to secure our southern border, Trump could have got the job done by summer. Israel’s 400-mile security fence around the West Bank was built in a comparable span of time, and the U.S.A. has far more resources than Israel. …

Instead we just get these occasional picayune news stories about “prototypes” for the wall. We’re trying out this, we’re trying out that … but, quote, “any meaningful construction is still at least 10 months away, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials said.”

That was in late October. Ten months on would be August 2018; and this is a government official talking, so you can take that ten months with a grain of salt.

Most likely we’ll be heading into the midterms — two years on from Trump’s election victory — with no wall at all.

Imagine going in to the midterms with a great big beautiful wall, paid for by a tax on remittances from Mexicans living in the States. Imagine the satisfaction of those of us who voted for Trump in 2016, and the enthusiasm that satisfaction would translate into — enthusiasm to vote for midterm candidates Trump supports.

Instead, what did we get? A tax bill. As best I can figure from the news reports, the Derbs will be better off by some sum of money between two and four hundred dollars a year.

I don’t care. …

Chain migration is fundamentally transforming the USA:

For Democrats, ending chain migration would mean the annihilation of their next cohort of voters.  … The mechanics of chain migration — that colossal multiplier effect — are poorly understood by the general public, and the Opposition Party intends to keep it that way. …

Amnesty for the DACA illegals without an end to chain migration, would mean that today’s 800,000 would swell to eight million early in the next decade, to eighty million by mid-century. A successful propaganda effort on that would involve getting the electorate to do mental arithmetic … so forget it.

Macron gets tough as France struggles to deal with migrants

Macron gets tough as France struggles to deal with migrants, by Elaine Ganley.

Macron’s government is now tightening the screws: ramping up expulsions, raising pressure on economic migrants and allowing divisive ID checks in emergency shelters.

Critics contend that Macron’s increasingly tough policy on migrants — though wrapped in a cloak of goodwill — contradicts his image as a humanist who defeated an anti-immigrant populist for the presidency, and has crossed a line passed by no other president in the land that prides itself as the cradle of human rights. …

Macron has made clear he wouldn’t accept economic migrants in France, wants those who don’t qualify for asylum expelled and doesn’t want them even trying to come to France. …

Far-right leader Marine Le Pen, defeated by Macron in the May presidential race, sees the direction the government is taking as a “political victory” for her anti-immigration National Front party. …

On the ground, authorities are scrambling to show they are following the president’s clear-the-streets orders. …

Patrick Weil, among France’s leading immigration specialists, said Macron “tweets about human rights and refugees during the day and at night gives the opposite orders.”

Weil contended on BFM-TV that Macron’s approach is “the most extreme we’ve had since the war.”

It’s coated “with a smile, with bonbons, but in practice it’s a dagger,” he said.

Who’s Winning the Culture War?

Who’s Winning the Culture War? By David Hopkins.

At the 1992 Republican National Convention, Pat Buchanan famously declared that American politics had become a “cultural war.” In the years since, social issues and identities have become more important in dividing Democrats from Republicans.

Traditionally, the two parties fought mostly over economics. But now cultural issues like abortion and gun control divide Americans more sharply along regional lines than economic policies. One impact of the rise of the culture war in the 1990s was to reorder the popular coalitions of the parties — for example, by attracting evangelical Protestants to the Republicans while propelling secular voters toward the Democrats. This also redefined their geographic constituencies. …

Political analysts often argue that the rise of the culture war has had an acrimonious effect on American politics by expanding the battlefield of partisan disagreement to include a set of policies that provoke moral fervor, like abortion and gay rights, or activate fundamental personal identities such as religion and ethnicity. These divisions, they suggest, do not lend themselves to negotiation and compromise as readily as differences over economics, where horse-trading and difference-splitting are more feasible solutions.

Pardon me, Canberra, your hypocrisy is showing

Pardon me, Canberra, your hypocrisy is showing, by Maurice Newman.

Take our jetsetting Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop. She claimed $1.2m in expenses last year, including a trip to Sydney for a film premiere and a day at the polo. She charged taxpayers $7000 for four trips to Adelaide that coincided with her older sister’s birthdays. The Herald Sun also found eight occasions when official business took her to the same city her beloved Eagles were playing away games. Nothing to see there.

Nor when Labor frontbencher Tony Burke was forced to declare two undisclosed separate stays worth thousands of dollars at Eddie Obeid’s luxury Perisher ski lodge in 2004 to 2006. Or when Burke took his family on a taxpayer-funded business class trip to Uluru during the 2012 school holidays, or used a family reunion entitlement to take four family members from Ballina back to Sydney during the 2010 school holidays. To be fair, he did repay $94 claimed as travel expenses to attend a Robbie Williams concert.

In a seven-year period, Burke claimed more than $4.6m, or almost $60,000 a month in expenses. He is now manager of opposition business. Go figure.

But even this “anything goes” culture has limits. When Labor senator Sam Dastyari allowed a Chinese government-linked company to pay off a $1600 travel debt, give him two bottles of Grange worth $1400 (disclosed as “two bottles of wine”) and meet a $40,000 legal bill, the obvious conflict finally became too much for him to remain on the frontbench and then in the Senate. That’s how low the bar is. No wonder Donald Trump’s “drain the swamp” resonates so strongly with the electorate.

If companies gave false profit guidance the way governments promise a return to budget surplus, boards and management would face serious Australian Securities & Investments Commissions charges. If a business claimed it could deliver a new broadband network for $26 billion when the ultimate cost was about three times that, then those responsible would be sued for negligence. But not in politics. Politicians take big bets using other people’s money. They take credit for successes while taxpayers underwrite their mistakes. This is a bad deal for taxpayers. …

It’s the risk we run when our parliament consists of careerists whose real-world experience is limited to being a political staff member or a trade union official. It’s an unpredictable mix of ambition and dangerous ideology. It highlights a crisis in governance and a crying need to widen the gene pool of our elected representatives. What was once a noble pursuit of public service has being corrupted by mercenaries. If liberties have to be taken, the ends justify the means.

Political parties may compete for the spoils of office, but ideologically their differences are blurred, and when push comes to shove they have demonstrated where their loyalties really lie. And it’s not with the Australian people.

We got it wrong on Brexit gloom, economists admit: Buoyant British economy is set to power past France by 2020

We got it wrong on Brexit gloom, economists admit: Buoyant British economy is set to power past France by 2020, by Daniel Martin.

Britain’s economy is now predicted to overtake France’s in 2020 as experts admitted they had been too gloomy over Brexit.

The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) had claimed the economy would slow down because of a drop in consumer spending and investment.

But last night the think-tank admitted it had got this wrong, saying: ‘In practice this has not happened.’

Its economists accepted the fears they expressed last year that Brexit would leave the UK behind the French economy for five years were exaggerated.

They were corrupted by politics, lying for their tribe.