The Strange Death of Comedy

The Strange Death of Comedy, by Owen Benjamin.

PC fantasies versus reality — it’s even wrecking comedy.

The job of comedians is to release a little social stress through satire. That’s not possible anymore, as only full time campaigning for PC is allowed. (Except when PC people aren’t around, of course. Which is why non-PC people seldom stay friends with PC people for long.)

hat-tip Scott of the Pacific

“Death of a Nation” Trailer

“Death of a Nation” Trailer.

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.

Lincoln united his party and saved America from the Democrats for the first time. Can Trump — and we — come together and save America for the second time?

It’s a bit over the top. Perhaps too unsubtle. Nonetheless, it’s  interesting to see that someone has made it and it will be released.

There is more than grain of truth to this, however. The Nazis really were left-wing socialists, the Roosevelt administration did cozy up to the European fascists somewhat, eugenics was a trendy left-wing idea, the Democrats were the party responsible for anti-black discrimination in the US and in favor of slavery, Lincoln was a Republican, the Republicans were founded in part to end slavery in the US, and so on.  So many facts that our opinion forming class ignores — or implies the opposite — as it seeks advantage for today’s left (i.e. themselves). This movie seems like a full frontal assault to try and get some of those points out to the public.

hat-tip Joanne

The Key Statistic from Australia’s “Super Saturday” Elections

The Key Statistic from Australia’s “Super Saturday” Elections, by Mark Latham.

In 2013 under Tony Abbott, the Liberals had a primary vote of 44.8% in [the Queenland seat of] Longman and 53.8% in [the South Australian seat of] Mayo. Yesterday under Malcolm Turnbull, these figures were 28.6% and 36.3% respectively — in both cases, a drop of 16-17%.

Longman and Mayo are outer suburban/hinterland seats, the kind of electorates that usually determine general election results. Turnbull, with his aloof manner and policy timidity, is poison for the Liberals in these seats. … Abbott was far more effective as Liberal leader in the outer suburbs and hinterland areas. …

Australian politics has ended a weird Twilight Zone. The major parties have failed on energy policy, immigration, education, health, economic management, deficit reduction, tax policy, wages growth and in refusing to stand up against political correctness and identity politics.

As a result of these failures, Labor and Liberal run surreal campaigns against each other in key seats — with intense negativity against the other side, and a series of empty slogans pretending they still have policy solutions. Shorten, for instance, talks a lot about improving hospitals, schools and wages growth but hasn’t got a clue as to how this might be achieved (other than by throwing good money after bad).

The system has become a joke. Labor and Liberal campaign by squabbling over the scraps of their own failures. As the ALP strategist Bruce Hawker has admitted, up to 47% of the electorate is now either supporting a minor party or thinking about it.

hat-tip Joanne

1,400 years of uninterrupted conflict laid on Islam’s doorstep

1,400 years of uninterrupted conflict laid on Islam’s doorstep, by Robert Spencer.

“What I found is that through 14 centuries, without any break, without any let-up, without any reformation or reconsideration, without any period of tolerance — although there are a lot of historical myths about that — Islam has been responsible for conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims for 14 uninterrupted centuries,” said Spencer, who is quick to point out that most Muslims are not jihadists.

“Obviously, not all Muslims are involved in this and not all of them approved of it. Nonetheless, in every century and in in every place in the world where there have been Muslims, there have been jihadis who thought that it was one of their responsibilities before Allah to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers,” said Spencer.

Islam was founded in A.D. 622, Muhammad died in 632, and by 732, at the Battle of Tours in modern-day France, Charles Martel led a decisive Frankish victory against Muslim invaders who had already swept through North Africa and Spain.

But how did those invaders get from the Arabian Peninsula to the Atlantic coast within 100 years? Spencer says it was accomplished through violent conquest, and he contends most people who deny the violence perpetrated in the early years of Islam are arguing from a position of ignorance.

“People aren’t really aware of this history. This is one of the reasons why I wrote this book. The Islamic advance was incredibly swift. And not only did they get all the way to the Atlantic and to Spain within 100 years of the death of Muhammad, but they also went in the other direction, conquered one of the great powers of the day in Persia and went into India,” said Spencer.

Spencer says his book is the first work in the English language to detail the jihad against India, which he calls “an extraordinary and bloody story.”

“I think a lot of people take for granted the idea that there was some kind of mass conversion to Islam, that people were converting to it because they were convinced that it was true and that this is what was responsible for the Islamization of the Middle East and North Africa. That’s actually not the case. It was all done by conquest,” he said.

Spencer further asserts that ISIS is not the exception or some radical departure from Islam over the centuries. He claims ISIS looks much like jihadists throughout the past 14 centuries.

Ever noticed that most of the world’s conflicts are around the boundaries between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds? Or that over half the world’s conflicts since WWII have involved Muslims?

Islam is the religion of conflict.

Jihadists also played a key role in the first major military engagement of the United States when President Thomas Jefferson was forced to confront the Barbary Pirates off the coast of North Africa.

“They were jihadis, as I show in the book. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams wrote a report to Congress about how the Moroccan ambassador had explained that they were fighting them because it was explained in the Quran and they felt they had a divine responsibility to do so,” said Spencer.

That conflict is also how U.S. Marines became known as “leathernecks.”

“They’re leathernecks because they wore leather collars that would prevent them from being beheaded. The (Marine Corps) song with the ‘shores of Tripoli’ was all about them facing the jihadis,” said Spencer.

In multiple speeches, President Obama stated Muslims have been a vital fabric of the United States from our very beginning. Spencer says other than being our first opponent in war, Obama’s assertions do not hold up.

“In terms that Obama’s claim that Muslims were in the United States and were involved in it since the founding; that’s complete historical fiction and has no basis in fact whatsoever,” said Spencer.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Impossible Dreams: The West’s Undying Love Affair With Marx

Impossible Dreams: The West’s Undying Love Affair With Marx, by Claude Polin.

Marx-inspired communism may very well have been the greatest scourge mankind has ever devised against mankind, and I suspect there are plenty who would agree with such an indictment.

But why then has there never been enough steam anywhere in the West to bring about a public trial of communism, the way Nazism was tried without wasting a minute after World War II? To me this is the real mystery of the West, the surrendering of its soul to the gross attacks of the snake it let grow inside itself. …

Whatever Marxists — or self-proclaimed ones — may have done, there must be something profoundly alluring for Western populations in the Marxist doctrine, so much so that they are spontaneously attracted to it.

Let us return to some fundamentals, which is to say the extraordinary upheaval that permeated the Western world beginning in the 16th century. The feeling and the idea progressively spread and became an accepted truth that mankind had entered an entirely new era of its history, an era pregnant with the promise (declared to be much more reliable than the Christian one) that mankind had finally emerged from a world of suffering, sorrow, and slavery to enter a new one in which each and every human being would be free to fulfill his needs and dreams, particularly material ones — in other words, to achieve happiness. …

Marx has no other goal than that of modernity itself, which is the West’s goal par excellence. Just listen to him: Communism is a system in which it will be possible “for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” Communism is a society of utter freedom, where everyone roams at his leisure doing only what he wants to do. Now is that so different from John Locke’s and, behind him, all the liberals’ discourses? …

Marx is not an enemy of the liberals; he is the embodiment of a liberal who has managed to attain the goal he has set himself. …

Now I want to suggest that it must be extremely difficult for anyone who believes in the promises of modernity not to be tempted by Marx’s proposals, so generous at first sight, even though they must have included the elimination of a few kulaks, a few of the old-style owners. But who cares about a few lives, if the happiness of millions is involved? Marx was giving new life to a dying dream. …

How long can the dream linger on? Things will go their natural way, and soon enough the comrade general will become much more of a general than a comrade. Little by little communism will slouch toward its most hateful state, that of a society that has lost all pretence of community. Since everyone is supposed to be a sovereign, each will try to ensure his sovereignty as much as he possibly can, and communism will turn into a jungle in which every man is a law unto himself and no one stoops to obedience unless fear forces him to do so.

This is why the people of the West are having an epiphany of sorts. Suddenly, liberal societies represent, in the very eyes of the communist-inspired citizens themselves, mankind’s best hope for universal happiness, because these societies let every individual pursue his own happiness in his own way, without fear of being sent to the cellars of the Lubyanka. …

The West will rid itself of Marx only if it decides to return to the wisdom of its past, correcting its possible flaws, but preserving its commitment to the fundamental belief that man must understand the world and his place in it, rather than try to recreate a world in which everyone may live according to his impulses.

It must nevertheless be realized what liberal reformers are facing, which is nothing less than the great temptation that has been mankind’s ever since man was created: “Ye shall be like gods.” Marxism is just the umpteenth temptation of the Dark Angel whose names are legion. Of course, the price of yielding to such temptation is Hell, which is why from time to time the walls protecting the unholy dreamers come crumbling down. But the dream marches on and will continue to do so as long as Westerners stick to the infantile wishful thinking that the great Deceiver keeps whispering in their ears and which is rendered periodically irresistible by the patent and unjustifiable inequities of modern Western societies.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Boatloads of Illegal Migrants Storm Spanish Tourist Beaches

Boatloads of Illegal Migrants Storm Spanish Tourist Beaches.

Barbarian invasion, 2018.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Make Babies Great Again: Hungarian Fertility Rates Rise, Turns Back Demographic Decline

Make Babies Great Again: Hungarian Fertility Rates Rise, Turns Back Demographic Decline, by Victoria Friedman.

Hungary’s pro-family culture has resulted in a rising fertility rate for married women which is “winding back the clock” on demographic decline — a trend once deemed irreversible in Europe and used by globalists to justify mass migration from the third world.

“The country is not just experiencing a fertility spike; Hungary is winding back the clock on much of the fertility and family-structure transition that demographers have long considered inevitable,” writes the author of “Is Hungary Experiencing a Policy-Induced Baby Boom?” from the Institute for Family Studies website.

“That’s unusual,” author Lyman Stone wrote, “as most countries around the world are currently experiencing stable or falling fertility, especially in Europe.” …

Stone points to Hungary’s pro-family constitution adopted in 2011 which stated that “We believe that our children and grandchildren will make Hungary great again,” and which defends “the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman… and the family as the basis of the nation’s survival.”

Stone also pointed to the Hungarian “marriage boom”, which “starting around 2012, but really taking off in 2015 and 2016? saw women in Hungary becoming more likely to get married — particularly at a younger age which offers a wider window for natural fertility (which is below the age of 35).

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Italy’s Salvini Wants More Babies, Fewer Migrants: ‘A Country Which Does Not Create Children is Destined to Die’

Italy’s Salvini Wants More Babies, Fewer Migrants: ‘A Country Which Does Not Create Children is Destined to Die’. By Jack Montgomery.

“We have created a ministry of the family to work on fertility, nurseries, on a fiscal system which takes large families into account. At the end of this mandate, the government will be measured on the number of newborns more than on its public debt,” [Italy’s new Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior Matteo Salvini] declared.

The 45-year-old warned that nothing less than Italy’s “tradition, our story, our identity” was at stake — particularly as the political left was using declining birthrates and the supposed threat of an ageing population an “excuse” to “import immigrants”.

The Italian leader appears to be following in the footsteps of conservatives in Central Europe, particularly Poland and Hungary, who have made a conscious decision to pursue pro-family policies and reject mass migration, even if it means slower short-term gains to GDP and provoking the globalist establishment in the European Union. …

The stance of Orbán and Salvini stands in marked contrast to that of many left-liberal politicians in Western Europe, such as Germany’s Gregor Gysi, who believe it is not just necessary but actively desirable that local people be replaced by ‘New Europeans’ from a migration background.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

China military develops robotic submarines to launch a new era of sea power

China military develops robotic submarines to launch a new era of sea power, by Stephen Chen.

Unmanned AI subs, expected in the 2020s, could challenge the advantage Western naval powers have in strategic waters like the South China Sea.

China is developing large, smart and relatively low-cost unmanned submarines that can roam the world’s oceans to perform a wide range of missions, from reconnaissance to mine placement to even suicide attacks against enemy vessels, according to scientists involved in these artificial intelligence (AI) projects. …

The submarines will have no human operators on board. They will go out, handle their assignments and return to base on their own. They may establish contact with the ground command periodically for updates, but are by design capable of completing missions without human intervention.

Now under development, the AI-powered subs are “giants” compared to the normal [unmanned underwater vehicles] UUVs, according to the researchers. They station in dock as conventional submarines. Their cargo bay is reconfigurable and large enough to accommodate a wide range of freight, from powerful surveillance equipment to missiles or torpedoes. Their energy supply comes from diesel-electric engines or other power sources that ensure continuous operation for months. …

They can gather intelligence, deploy mines or station themselves at geographical “chockpoints” where armed forces are bound to pass to ambush enemy targets. They can work with manned submarines as a scout or decoy to draw fire and expose the position of the adversary. If necessary, they can ram into a high-value target. …

Russia has reportedly built a large underwater drone capable to carry a nuclear weapon. The Status-6 autonomous torpedo could cruise across large distances between continents at high speed and deliver a 100-megaton warhead, according to news accounts. …

The main advantage of the AI subs is that they can be produced and operated on a large scale at a relatively low cost, said the researcher, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. …

Luo Yuesheng, professor at the College of Automation in Harbin Engineering University, a major development centre for China’s new submarines, contended that AI subs would put the human captains of other vessels under enormous pressure in battle.

It is not just that the AI subs are fearless, Luo said, but that they could learn from the sinking of other AI vessels and adjust their strategy continuously. An unmanned submarine trained to be familiar to a specific water “will be a formidable opponent”, he said.

The PC left wheels out renaming the Texas capital of Austin

The PC left wheels out renaming the Texas capital of Austin, by Monica Showalter.

After getting a bunch of Confederate statues taken down in the name of political correctness, a proposal is going out in Texas, from something called the City of Austin’s Equity Office, to change the name of the city itself, all because the Texas founding father wasn’t politically in tune with their times and sensitivities.

Here is what the Austin American-Statesman reports: …

Known as both the “father of Texas” and the namesake of the state’s capital, Stephen F. Austin carved out the early outlines of Texas among his many accomplishments.

He also opposed an attempt by Mexico to ban slavery in the province of Tejas and said if slaves were freed, they would turn into “vagabonds, a nuisance and a menace.” …

And the Equity Office’s reasoning in its bid to dismantle Texas’s heritage? …

“It is also important to acknowledge that nearly all monuments to the Confederacy and its leaders were erected without a true democratic process. People of color often had no voice and no opportunity to raise concerns about the city’s decision to honor Confederate leaders.” …

The proposal is loathesome, another Taliban-like bid to erase history and leave citizens adrift, lost, and best of all, easier to manipulate in the aftermath by demagogues, presumably leftist demagogues intent on building a New Texas Man.

Worse still, such a move would excite leftists elsewhere. St. Francis really had a thing about converting Muslims to Christianity, to “save their souls,” so will San Francisco lose its name next?

Ha ha:

Austin is a hipsterly city loaded with youthful leftists which has built quite a brand name. Were they to rename their city of Austin ‘Leftwingia’ or something, they’d lose that accumulated brand recognition. The massive tourists flows (Thomas Lifson points out that London has two direct flights to Austin) might not be so lucrative anymore. Who’d want to go to Leftwingia instead of a city that retains some of its historic personality?

The steady drumbeat of anti-white racism, with a bit of anti-male animus as well.

Love the name “Leftwingia” — I wonder who’d want to live there?

Malcolm Turnbull wanted to join Labor

Malcolm Turnbull wanted to join Labor, by Greg Milne in 2009, as noted today by Andrew Bolt.

The Sunday Telegraph has confirmed Mr Turnbull approached at least six senior ALP figures, including former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, actively seeking their endorsement to join the ALP at the time of the republic referendum.

Speaking for the first time on the issue, Mr Hawke said Mr Turnbull approached him on November 6, 1999, at Sydney’s Marriott Hotel following the referendum’s defeat.

Mr Hawke said yesterday he remembered the conversation clearly. Mr Turnbull told him: “Bob, the only thing I can do now is join the Labor Party.”

Mr Hawke said he replied by telling Mr Turnbull “he could be accommodated” and that “the Labor Party was a broad church”.

The former senior ALP staffer David Britton, who founded the Labor lobbying firm HawkerBritton, said Mr Turnbull told him at the time of the referendum he was “deeply p….. off with Howard” – and that he had a “very different social agenda” to the then prime minister. …

Mr Beazley said he rebuffed him, telling him he “was basically aLib” and he should join theLiberal Party if he wanted to enter Federal Parliament.

The Republican Party: Not Much of a Horse But the Only One in the Corral

The Republican Party: Not Much of a Horse But the Only One in the Corral, by Jared Peterson.

The tragedy of American conservatism is that its only electoral home is in a party most of whose funds come from those who agree with the globalist agenda and whose privileged position insulates them from its disastrous cultural consequences. In short, America’s corporate elite is making tons of money from globalism — chiefly, mass immigration and manufacturing outsourcing — while they experience no negative effects in their privileged and insular world.

Oh sure, they advocate a bit of border protection here, a little improvement in US trade deals there, but basically they’re on board for free trade, relaxed borders and mass immigration. They have a wealthy person’s distaste for excessive government regulation and high taxes — hence, they are “Republicans” — but, stem the flood of cheap labor immigrants? Why on earth would they want to do that?

The first economic consequence of mass immigration is lower labor costs across the economy, from lettuce pickers to computer programmers, and that pushes historic quantities of money up to America’s corporate owners and executives. The working and middle classes endure the economic downside in the form of fewer jobs and much lower wages.

This has all been discussed ad nauseam before. But it can’t be repeated too often: Mass immigration has been an economic bonanza for major owners and executives and an economic disaster for the other 80% of the population.

The protected class has been making the decisions:

America’s upper class hypocrites who have brought the joys of mass third world immigration to middle and working class America are, as yet, absolutely immune from its baleful cultural concomitants.

They live in elegant neighborhoods, behind gates and walls, protected as often as not by private security; their children attend the finest private schools where a learning environment still exists and the risk of being beaten up or shaken down for lunch money is zero; their family members and friends don’t have to ride BART, or the subway, or the bus in the middle of the night to or from poorly paid jobs; the members of their swank clubs look like they did in 1980 and all speak English; and their mode of transport is the first class cabin or private jet.

I begrudge them none of this. My quarrel is that much of their wealth and ease comes from a globalism whose detriments are inflicted solely on the bottom 80% of Americans. But the cultural concomitants of mass third world immigration are well known to that bottom 80% of Americans. …

The Democrats:

The Democratic Party, in its lunatic, massively unpopular stands on illegal immigration and border protection, has been leading with its chin as perhaps never before. Abolishing ICE, opening America’s southern border, and supporting sanctuary cities that shelter criminals and drug dealers may be the most toxic brew of Democratic Party electoral poison that party has yet concocted. It begs for brutal, repeated, brass knuckle exposure. This well could be the issue that turns an off-year election into a historic Democratic wipeout.