Not since 1860 have the Democrats so fanatically refused to accept the result of a free election. That year, their target was Lincoln. They smeared him. They went to war to defeat him. In the end, they assassinated him.
Now the target of the Democrats is President Trump and his supporters. The Left calls them racists, white supremacists and fascists. These charges are used to justify driving Trump from office and discrediting the right “by any means necessary.”
But which is the party of the slave plantation? Which is the party that invented white supremacy? Which is the party that praised fascist dictators and shaped their genocidal policies and was in turn praised by them?
Moreover, which is the party of racism today? Is fascism now institutionally embodied on the right or on the left?
Through stunning historical recreations and a searching examination of fascism and white supremacy, “Death of a Nation” cuts through progressive big lies to expose hidden history and explosive truths.
It is amazing that it is still controversial that the Nazis were socialists, or that the communist mass killers — Mao, Lenin, Stalin — are still kind of cool. Yes, the KKK really were the armed wing of the Democrat Party, which institutionalized racism in the USA. Yes, affirmative action and much of the left’s platform today really is racist — in the old-fashioned meaning as a form of prejudice, of discrimination on the basis of race. These are all examples of obvious truths “hidden” by the left’s control of the media and academia.
Here it looks like D’Souza is hanging historical blame largely where it belongs, and asking if the same sort of people today are leading us into trouble. Revolutionary.
A poll by YouGov shows that half of Democrats think it was “fair” to kick Sarah Sanders out of that restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. Only a third of Dems think it was unfair.
These numbers are, within a one percentage point, the reverse of what Americans as a whole believe about the incident. No wonder the Democratic establishment frets about the unhinged left. Arguably, it should be freaking out.
Niall Ferguson, one of the great contemporary historians, recently lamented the systematic way the educational and political left have moved through mainstream Western university departments and taken over every new position. They are ruthless about appointing like-minded people who sign up to broadly sympathetic ideological approaches. …
There are two fundamental problems with humanities departments in many Western universities now — their content and their intellectual methods. Both have been overwhelmed by critical theory and postmodernism.
Postmodernism regards all traditional historical narrative as false, while critical theory denies the very reality of objective facts. Both are mired in a series of interlocking cliches and dogmatic assertions about gender, class and race. These approaches, far from being radical, hip and relevant, have resulted in massive decline across the Western world of enrollments in humanities.
I began my working life as an ABC cadet journalist 15 years before Michelle Guthrie was born. …
The community’s simmering disquiet with the public broadcaster’s decline in credibility has been trying for years to find its expression in policy terms. The recent populist clamour to “sell off the ABC” can be seen as a final incoherent shout from the frustrated and disappointed. …
Wrong priorities advertised in public:
Guthrie’s recent speech to the Melbourne Press Club … demonstrated how little she understood of journalism. … She also went on to define the role of her journalists as “their relentless drive to ensure that the institutions and processes which are the foundations of our democratic system work to the benefit of that community; their determination to provide a voice for the powerless, the weak and the intimidated; their ability to shine the light on malfeasance and corruption”.
Wrong! That’s exactly the problem with ABC news and current affairs. One might think a managing director who had assumed the unearned title of editor-in-chief would at least make seeking facts and objective truth the hallmark of a news service. It used not to be difficult to define news in those terms. …
ABC news is now trivialised. Every night the flagship 7pm television bulletin runs petty local stories ahead of news of consequence to the nation and the world. The audience decline reflects its loss of credibility. …
The multiplicity of news programs across many radio and TV channels has put supervision of news content in the hands of the producer of each. Gone are the knowledge, wisdom and authority of the chief sub-editor, who caught mistakes before they went to air and put a stop to any juvenile attempts to introduce comment or opinion.
ABC news once had a style guide. If it still exists, it’s been watered down, or allowed to be flouted. For example, adjectives were banned, except in quotation. Today reporters use them to subtly colour their stories. Preambles and summary conclusions were prohibited because they were comment, potentially indicating how a listener should interpret the item. Opinion, unless as a direct quote, would see the reporter sent back to rewrite. Yet the other day a Washington correspondent took it upon himself to characterise Donald Trump as “a President under siege”, then interpreted his comments about past policies as “insulting the other side”.
Such lazy, undisciplined writing goes unremarked, but is understandably seen as evidence of bias. Too often, interviewers don’t just ask questions, they argue. …
In the past, there was discipline. Personal views were never allowed to intrude. Management control and sub-editorial oversight ensured that, and reporters understood instinctively that impartiality was fundamentally the basis for public trust. It was our role to provide the facts, not to change the world.
London’s Labour Mayor has been shouted down at a public event, with a mother explaining she and her son do not “feel safe” in his city.
Sadiq Khan refused to take responsibility for the massive violent crime wave sweeping London, once again blaming the Conservatives and calling the Government “anti-London”.
London’s Mayor (at another occasion)
The crowd did not accept his excuses and the Mayor was “booed by the audience as he finish[ed] his speech” as the people were “very angry at the level of crime in London”, LBC editor Theo Usherwood reported.
“There are no bobbies on our street, Londoners don’t feel safe, our communities don’t feel safe,” the unidentified woman shouted at the LBC State of London event, to loud cheers from the crowd.
She added: “You give me statistics Mr Khan, but for me as a parent, I’m telling you, we do not feel safe. We do not feel safe in London and we want you to do something about it!”
Who thinks it would be a good idea to hand over our next mobile communications network to a company with intimate connections to the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Liberation Army, and which is obliged under Chinese law to support Beijing’s intelligence-gathering activities?
Second question: who thinks it would be a smart idea to allow a Hong Kong company to dominate electricity and gas distribution in Victoria and South Australia, gas transmission and distribution in Queensland and the Northern Territory, and critical gas transmission assets in Western Australia and NSW?
It says nothing positive about Canberra’s approach to national security that these developments are regarded in some circles as serious possibilities to take over critical infrastructure essential to how we function. …
Canberra should move quickly to block Huawei’s access to 5G and CKI’s access to APA’s gas and electricity business. This is the necessary price of maintaining national security interests in the face of an increasingly predatory China looking to maximise its own strategic interests at the expense of all others.
To the overwhelming majority of liberals, wanting to limit immigration to preserve the cultural status quo is an act of evil. As racism, along with homophobia, is one of the sins that call out to liberal heaven to be avenged, well, no wonder Democratic candidates are now calling for the abolition of ICE, and open borders (either openly or cagily). …
Every single diversity session training I’ve ever had to attend as an employee made me angry, because the political biases masquerading as virtue were as plain as day. To object to anything the instructors claimed was to out oneself as a bigot. It was coercion — though I can easily imagine the instructors, and the company management that hired them, saw no political content at all.
We just want our employees not to be bigots, is all. OK, fine — but what counts as bigotry? That’s the neuralgic point.
I came out of those sessions not more bigoted (at least I hope not), but even more skeptical of the concept of “diversity,” seeing in it a program designed to marginalize and demonize people like me, and our interests.
Why the left cannot process this graph:
The professor, who teaches geopolitics in a university, simply mentioned that managing the massive migration efforts out of sub-Saharan Africa (this, given the skyrocketing birthrate, and lack of economic development) is going to be the chief challenge of Europe in this century.
European elites — political, academic, ecclesial, etc. — have not wanted to deal with this. The information in the Edsall column indicates why: because they are terrified of sounding and being racist. They believe that defending the integrity of their own cultures, and the ways of their own people, is somehow immoral. We can see that our own liberals view it the same way. The European elites are, therefore, conceptually defenseless against the migrant invasion. One imagines that Europeans, with their militaries, have the means to stop the inflow, but they lack the will.
Stupid, stupid, must be replaced. Under their rule, a new dark age beckons:
It is perfectly just to refer to what’s happening in Europe as “barbarian invasions,” with reference to the massive, civilization-changing influx of the Germanic tribes across the frontiers of the Roman empire. “Barbarian” was the word the Greeks used for peoples unlike themselves, bearers of different (and, to the Greeks, more primitive and therefore inferior) civilizations — or rather, those who had culture, but no civilization. The Germanic tribes were not Romanized, but they wanted to live within Rome’s ambit. The Empire in the West lost the ability to defend its borders … and eventually collapsed. That was the end of Rome.
The cultural point remains: the more people from alien cultures you have moving into your own, the more fragile and vulnerable your own culture becomes, especially if it is held with less force than the aliens hold their own. A Europe that is dominated by resident Africans is not Europe, any more than a Japan dominated resident Europeans is Japan, or a Ghana dominated by American migrants would be Ghana, or a Rome dominated by Germanic tribes is Rome. This is something very difficult for Americans to grasp, given that our own culture is so plastic and commercialized. You can’t spend any time in Europe, though, and fail to grasp this point. …
Is it racist to want to preserve your own culture and civilization? Yes, according to most liberals, per the Kauffman study. …
If the price of being progressive, or even virtuous in the judgment of progressives, is to hate your own fathers, your mothers, and your civilization, well, to hell with progressive virtue. …
African migrants to Europe, as well as migrants from elsewhere, are “barbarians” in the sense that they are bearers of profoundly different, alien cultures that are often antagonistic to European norms — and if they move into Europe in sufficient numbers, they will overwhelm traditional European cultures. This cannot be denied. Liberalism cannot stop this, in part because it can’t even admit that it’s happening.
Leftists choose not to distinguish between expressions of white racism and expressions of white self-interest. Sure, in the short term they harvest immigrant votes for a leftist welfare state, and they get to rub their opponents noses in diversity. But the long term is appalling — where in sub-Saharan Africa is there a civilization you would want to live in?
Ahmed S was drunk and harassing a waitress in a bar near Capucins street and the Leopold Place. He was asked by the waitress to leave the place. At this point he caught the attention of a the young Jean-François, a 19 year old Belgian native.
The migrant, who arrived in Belgium only a year ago, switched his attention to the young man who was trying to protect the waitress and asked the young Belgian to buy him a drink.
Jean-François refused. As both men walked out of the place and headed to the train station, the migrant stabbed the 19 year old multiple times and sliced his throat.
The victim was quickly cared for by the rescue services but despite all their efforts, he died a few hours later in the hospital.
The suspect was arrested and judged Thursday morning. Judges and police in charge of the case are particularly shocked by the murder’s simplistic motive.
Diversity and different cultural norms. Are you ready?
After two failed attempts, Andrés Manuel López Obrador is on the verge of becoming Mexico’s next president. According to opinion polls, the 64-year-old leftist has a likely insurmountable lead ahead of Sunday’s election, buoyed by widespread anti-establishment sentiment. …
It’s all about the corruption of Mexico’s ruling class:
The signature theme of López Obrador’s campaign has been a sweeping message of anti-corruption, including promises he himself has made to forgo the perks of office and convert Mexico’s lush presidential palace into a public park. His opponents, meanwhile, have failed to shrug off the stigma of graft and abuse of power surrounding their parties and remain linked to a mess of ongoing scandals, as well as the spiraling violence surrounding the country’s notorious drug cartels. Outgoing President Enrique Peña Nieto and his ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, is a widely discredited, lame-duck politician; his appointed successor, José Antonio Meade, is a distant third in polling.
“This election really began to cease being political a few months ago and became emotional,” Mexican essayist Emiliano Monge told the New Yorker. “It is more than anything a referendum against corruption, in which, as much by right as by cleverness, Amlo has presented himself as the only alternative. And in reality he is.” …
Many of his supporters aren’t taking his victory for granted, dreading electoral malfeasance by the powers-that-be. “If they steal it, this city, the country, will explode,” one Amlo supporter told my colleagues at a rally this week. “They have been warned.” …
Leftist yes, but maybe not too much:
His critics cast him in line with Venezuela’s late Hugo Chávez and populist strongmen further to the south. … These concerns, argue many analysts, are somewhat overstated now. “I don’t think Mexico would tolerate another Chavez,” Jorge Guajardo, a former Mexican ambassador to China, told this column. …
“If he were seen as a real threat,” Alfredo Coutino of Moody’s Analytics told the Associated Press earlier this month, “I think the markets would be moving very strongly and we would be seeing investment decisions postponed or withdrawn.” That is, thus far, not the case.
Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young has accused senator David Leyonhjelm of telling her to “stop shagging men” during a debate about women and violence, and then swearing at her when she confronted him. …
[Leyonhjelm] said he was responding to Senator Hanson-Young’s interjection in the debate, which he claimed was “along the lines of all men being rapists”.
“I responded by suggesting that if this was the case she should stop shagging men. I did not yell at her,” Leyonhjelm said.
“Following the division, Senator Hanson-Young approached me and called me a creep. I told her to f*** off.”
He said if the Greens senator took offence, it was an issue for her.
“I am prepared to rephrase my comments. I strongly urge Senator Hanson-Young to continue shagging men as she pleases,” Senator Leyonhjelm said.
Now that Charles Krauthammer is gone, that leaves the country with exactly no columnists of influence who don’t begin each day thinking, “What do I hate most about President Trump?”
It’s stunning, but not unbelievable, that not a single national newspaper has been able to find even just one writer who can put forth a robust argument on behalf of the people who voted for Trump (ie. half of the country).
New polls show Trump with an approval rating of about 90 percent among Republicans, an astonishing number. Even Saint Ronald Reagan didn’t enjoy that level of support at the same point of his first term.
Yet, there’s no one who can reflect that on the opinion pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today or even, to a lesser extent, the Wall Street Journal?
The progressive, far-left-wing faction in US politics is aggressively pursuing so-called “deplatforming”: denying their opponents any outlet or medium or channel from or through which to make their views known. It’s more than censorship. It’s a blatant attempt to ensure that an entire viewpoint or perspective never reaches those who might be persuaded by it.
Fortunately, its ideological proponents make no secret of their motivation — and thereby expose their own intolerance. …
Donald Trump, first as candidate and now as president, is such a significant news story that responsible journalists must report on him. But this does not mean that he should be allowed to set the terms of the debate. [Agreed — but neither should anyone else.]
Research shows that repeatedly hearing assertions increases the likelihood of belief — even when the assertions are explicitly identified as false. Consequently, when journalists repeat Trump’s repeated lies, they are actually increasing the probability that people will believe them.
Even when journalistic responsibility requires reporting Trump’s views, this does not entail giving all of his spokespeople an audience. [So, you can say whatever you like, provided you do so in a howling wilderness where no other human being can hear you?]
There are many on the left who follow this specious reasoning. It’s at the root of campaigns to deny conservatives a platform on Twitter, Facebook, etc. — all while largely ignoring actively evil contributors like terrorists, pedophiles and others. It’s as much a lie as justifying violence against political opponents.
French President Emmanuel Macron has effectively declared that race does not exist, and pledged to rewrite the constitution to remove the word and reflect the values of liberty, equality and fraternity espoused after the 1789 revolution.
After the Second World War and the Nazi occupation the French government rewrote the constitution to enshrine in law the principle that citizens were “indivisible” and made it illegal to compile statistics about ethnicity. …
He is backing campaigners who say that since all humans are 99.9 per cent identical from a genetic point of view, the idea that humanity can be divided into different races is nonsense.
Imbecilic. Someone who isn’t perceptive enough to notice that there are races shouldn’t be running a cake stall, let alone a country.
Professional provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos has denied he incited today’s deadly shooting at a newspaper office which claimed the lives of at least five people.
A white male suspect has been taken into custody after the shooting at the Capital Gazette office in Annapolis, Maryland.
It has emerged that the former senior editor for Breitbart News had this week told two journalists that he “can’t wait for the vigilante squads to start gunning journalists”. …
Yiannopoulos … said in his Facebook post the death squad texts were a joke.
“I sent a troll about ‘vigilante death squads’ as a *private* response to a few hostile journalists who were asking me for comment, basically as a way of saying, ‘F**k off’. They then published it. Amazed they were pretending to take my joke as a ‘threat’, I reposted these stories on Instagram to mock them — and to make it clear that I wasn’t being serious.”
He said it was likely the shooter was left-wing.
“I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this shooter — just like the last one at YouTube — is another demented left-winger. Let’s hope it’s another transgender shooter, too, so the casualties are minimal.
“The Left celebrated the shooting of Scalise and regularly incites violence against Trump supporters.”
UPDATE: It’s not just Milo, but also Trump who caused the shooting:
A Twitter account matching Ramos’ name with a location of Laurel, Maryland, includes years of tweets railing against Capital Gazette and includes details of a years long legal dispute with the company.
According to an unreported 2015 opinion filed in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Ramos pleaded guilty to criminal harassment in July 2011. Five days later, an article about the case appeared in The Capital, one of Capital Gazette’s publications. The story detailed accusations by a woman who said Ramos harassed her online and off for months, calling her employer and trying to get her fired. The woman eventually went to the police and Ramos pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of harassment in 2011.
The Twitter account that matches Ramos’ name began tweeting about Capital Gazette several months after the conviction.
In July 2012, Ramos filed suit against Capital Gazette for defamation, according to the 2015 court filing. The complaint was just four paragraphs long, but Ramos filed a longer 22-page claim several months later.
In 2012, a judge dismissed the lawsuit on the basis that “there is absolutely not one piece of evidence, or an assertion by you that the statement [in the article] was false.”
“I think people who are the subject of newspaper articles, whoever they may be, feel that there is a requirement that they be placed in the best light, or they have an opportunity to have the story reported to their satisfaction, or have the opportunity to have however much input they believe is appropriate,” Judge Maureen M. Lamasney said when dismissing the case. “But that’s simply not true. There is nothing in those complaints that prove that anything that was published about you is, in fact, false.”
Notice that he hasn’t tweeted anything for two years, than suddenly, earlier today, one last tweet. Somehow this mass shooting is revenge against the judge (Charles Moylan) who ruled against him. It has nothing to do with Trump or politics.
This guy is just some crazy guy obsessed with this newspaper doing him wrong. The photo on his twitter feed is not Ramos, it’s the reporter that he sued.
The political circus will move on fast now. Nothing of interest to either side, just a bit of fake news from the left now retracted.
Despite its worthy reputation as the birthplace of political correctness, the United States is relatively free of legislation that outlaws so-called hate speech. Unlike Australians, American citizens can speak without fear of being summoned before a government tribunal to answer accusations they have, whether intentionally or otherwise, caused offence. …
Now that is about to change. Last week The Wall Street Journal, having obtained a leaked ACLU document, revealed the organisation is revising its case selection guidelines. Traditionally it has defended free speech matters as a matter of principle rather than on their content. Yet it now endorses the view “that speech that denigrates [marginalised] groups can inflict serious harms and is intended to and often will impede progress toward equality.” …
Any guesses what this is code for? I’ll give you a clue: the document contains negative references to “ultra-right groups” but is silent on the malevolence and thuggery of left-wing extremists such as Antifa and other so-called anti-fascist groups.
If you are a white conservative or if you espouse ideals that favour the individual over the collective, chances are the ACLU will not represent you.
If however you don a black balaclava and menace, shout-down, and even assault those few conservatives brave enough to speak on campus these days, you can expect the ACLU to champion your right to protest. …
As any member of ACLU’s Australian counterparts could tell you, defending the free speech of those with whom you disagree is so last century. Hell, they even publicly fawn over those ridiculously well-paid officials who seek to regulate speech. Who could forget Gillian Triggs, the then president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, who last year appeared at a Greens-affiliated Bob Brown Foundation event and lamented the fact that people were free to say what they like around the kitchen table at home? Instead of denouncing those comments as the hallmark of a totalitarian state, Liberty Victoria bestowed its Voltaire Award on Triggs for “her courageous stand on people’s rights, especially free speech.”