‘Rocky’ shock for China makes Trump Hong Kong hero

‘Rocky’ shock for China makes Trump Hong Kong hero. By Gabrielle Fonrouge.

President Trump is Hong Kong’s sudden hero.

Hours after he signed two bills to support human rights in Hong Kong, angering Chinese government officials, pro-democracy protesters in the beleaguered city held a “Thanksgiving Rally” Thursday night to commend him for taking the action.

And front and center at the rally were printouts of the president’s Wednesday tweet showing his head on Rocky Balboa’s chiseled body.

John Hinderaker (from the US):

Although liberals and the Red Chinese won’t admit it, America remains the land of the free. As we have seen over and over, those fighting for their own liberty around the world have no doubt about whom they want to emulate — us. …

Do they understand that [the photo] was a joke? Sure. But they also know it wasn’t only a joke.

Comment at Glenn Reynold’s:

Bare-Chested Hillary would not have been as effective.

and

They keep telling me Trump has made America a laughingstock around the globe, but my eyes keep seeing just the opposite.

This reality must be blowing some PC minds:

Also seen on the web:

Unchecked rise of democracy deniers

Unchecked rise of democracy deniers, by Chris Kenny.

They simply will not learn. They refuse to admit error, concede defeat or offer the crucial loser’s consent on which democracy hinges. Political opposition and public protest are fundamental in democracy. But there is a balance to be struck between such rights and the will of the majority as exercised through the ballot box.

That balance is out of kilter now. There are phonies in parliament, on campuses, all over social media and spewing erroneous groupthink from our public broadcasters. When facts don’t suit or reality confounds them, they console each other in the carefully constructed safe zones of university seminars or public radio forums. This cohort, for all its errors and misjudgments, dominates the public discussion; largely because of the heft of the taxpayer-funded media, university and quango sectors. They dominate now just as they did before this year’s election, before Don­ald Trump won and before Brexit.

But no. There are no lessons. The ideological and policy settings of the media/political class remain unadjusted. They wander right up to the cheese again, take another bite, and get jolted again by the electoral shock.

They are the democracy deniers. Their version of public debate is one of virtual reality; their views are constantly reaffirmed, it is only the voters who get it wrong. For VR goggles, they can blinker themselves by watching the ABC, perhaps SBS for variety, reading Guardian Australia and discussing events at the Wheeler Centre or on Q&A.

The real world is kept at bay. When elections confound them, as conservative victories invari­ably do, they can blame strangers from the suburbs and the regions, demonise the barbarians at the commercial end of the broadcast spectrum or invoke that hardy perennial of the defeated leftist, the Murdoch conspiracy theory (as we have heard from Turnbull, Kevin Rudd and others). Anything but confront the truth. Ultimately this is futile, as Winston Churchill suggested: “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.” …

It all smacks of an election result denied. It replicates the politics of the US and Britain, where not for a single moment have members of the media/political class accepted the will of the people as expressed through the election of Trump or the referendum vote for Brexit.

In this manifestation of democracy denial by the green left, elections are reduced to markers that deliver no lessons and in which the losers refuse to concede a point. Opposition merely morphs, through electoral rejection, into resistance. …

For democracy to operate effectively … there must be some element of loser’s consent. Instead we see loser’s bitterness and loser’s revenge.

PC fantasies versus reality. On topic after topic we see the same pattern, a PC fantasy in conflict with reality — and the fantasy just happens to hand the left political advantage. It is not, to use their favorite word, sustainable.

Clive James: The Left Lied by Omission, then Smeared Him

Clive James: The Left Lied by Omission, then Smeared Him. By David Evans.

Clive James, an Australian critic, broadcaster and writer who lived  in the UK from 1961, recently died at age 80. He was lionized by the PC media here as brilliant, with lots of publicity for his obituaries. But, as Joanne Nova points out:

Clive James was all these things

  • Incredibly funny
  • hysterically funny
  • Brilliant, we all know
  • So skilled, and like a juggler with words
  • Disciplined,
  • Incredibly hard working
  • and really loyal.

–quote, Jennifer Byrne, ABC, 7:30 Report 22:10

But he was also very much, unmistakably, an outspoken [climate] skeptic. Something the ABC couldn’t bring itself to say. What was Clive James’s position on the most expensive national policy gambit in a hundred years?

The ABC lies by omission. If he wrote a glowing Chapter about Greta in his final years we know the ABC would have told the world.

Bless you Clive: Brilliant, funny, disciplined and a climate skeptic.

The longest and most significant climate skeptical piece Clive wrote was a chapter in the book Climate Change the Facts 2017:

Then, in the comments on Joanne’s post quoted above, someone smeared Clive:

There is lots about scepticism, but no thing to say the Clive himself was sceptical about Climate Change. It should be remembered that he was primarily a wordsmith, and would write about anything for money.

The editor of the above book, Jennifer Marohasy, contacted Joanne to point out that:

  • Clive did not receive any money for his piece in that book.
  • It was over 5,000 words and took months of refining and working with her to produce. She and Clive exchanged 161 emails.

So, Clive did it for the love of it and truly was a climate skeptic. Something the PC mob don’t want you to know.

And the PC commenter just totally made it up in his comment. The slur that he just did it for the money is what they would like to be true, so they just advanced it into the conversation as if it was true.

We are still a high trust society, and assume the truth of what people say. But the PC mob just break that trust when it suits.

PC people will say anything to advance their ideology. It’s as if they have granted themselves license to not bother with facts when advancing their political causes. “Truth is subjective” is their way of warning you they lie. Ideology uber alles.

Angela Merkel Says Freedom of Speech Must be Curtailed to Keep Society Free

Angela Merkel Says Freedom of Speech Must be Curtailed to Keep Society Free, by Paul Joseph Watosn.

The debate over free speech in Germany has intensified since the country accepted over a million migrants from the Middle East and North Africa from 2015 onwards.

Many Germans have found themselves hit with charges of hate speech for pointing out ‘hate facts’ like migrants being responsible for crimes and sexual assaults

Well, Merkel was a Communist in her youth. Will Germany ever by truly free?

Putting the thoughtpolice on trial

Putting the thoughtpolice on trial, by Andrew Doyle, a stand-up comedian.

In January this year, Harry Miller, a 53-year-old docker and former police officer, was investigated by Humberside Police for retweeting a supposedly transphobic poem. Speaking to a police officer on the phone, Miller asked whether he had committed a crime, to which came the ominous response: ‘We need to check your thinking.

His retweet had been reported as a ‘non-crime hate incident’ – essentially offensive speech or behaviour which police often investigate and record in cases where no crime has been committed. …

The politicization of the criminal-justice system proceeds apace,. led by the increasingly leftist bureaucracy:

Over 3,000 people are arrested each year in the UK for offensive comments posted online. Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 criminalises online speech that can be deemed ‘grossly offensive’ by the courts (without any requirement for a prosecutor to prove that there was any intention to cause offence). It is a grotesque infringement on civil liberties.

It sometimes seems as if police departments are engaged in a competition to see who can behave in the most menacing manner on social media. ‘Think before you post or you may receive a visit from us this weekend’, tweeted Greater Glasgow Police in 2016. Not to be outdone, South Yorkshire Police called on the public last year to ‘report non-crime hate incidents, which can include things like offensive or insulting comments’. …

Police enforce the left’s incoherent dogma:

On the one hand, we are told not to question the biologically essentialist view that trans people are born with a brain that is gendered in a way counter to their anatomy. And on the other, we are told that gender is entirely socially constructed.

This week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stated that: ‘Men who get their periods are men. Men who get pregnant and give birth are men.’

Sure.

Police in the UK spend their time investigating and “correcting” the thoughts of non-PC whites, yet could not find the time or motivation to investigate the thousands of rapes of young girls in tens of English towns — such as Rotherham — by Muslims of Pakistani origin. Despite thousand s of complaints, the police didn’t want to know because it was too non-PC. They dismissed it, said the girls must have asked for it. Some estimates of the number of young white and Sikh girls raped run to a hundred thousand, even a million, over two decades. A colossal crime enabled and hushed up by the PC police.

Are we moving back to pre-Enlightenment behavior? As in so many things, the UK leads the way.

Ayn Rand seems appropriate:

There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them.

Left hates when Trump tells the truth

Left hates when Trump tells the truth, by Joe DePalo.

Roughly halfway through the Thanksgiving eve edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight, the Fox News host conceded that the president does, indeed, tell lies.  …

“Because that’s who he is,” Carlson said. “Donald Trump is a salesman: A talker, a boaster, a compulsive self-promoter. At times, he’s a full blown BS artist.”

But the host went on to posit that progressives aren’t really concerned about Trump’s false statements.

Listen for yourself:

Is lying really the reason the left despises Donald Trump? Or could the real problem be, as is so often the case, the exact opposite of what they claim it is? Think back over the last four years. When have the CNN anchors been the angriest? Was it when Trump told some whopper, or exaggerated his own accomplishments? Nope. They’re used to that kind of lying. Everyone who spends time around politicians is. What infuriates official Washington is not when Trump lies, but when he tells the truth. Truth is the real threat to their power.

The real crux of the matter, and a sharp insight, from 1:50:

There is an unspoken agreement among the people in charge of our country not to talk about what has happened to it. They are personally implicated in its decline, for one thing. Often they’re profiting from it. The last thing they want is a national conversation about what went wrong, so they maintain an increasingly strict policy of mandatory reality avoidance.

“Everything’s fine” they shout, voices rising in hysteria. “Diversity is our strength! Shut up, or we’ll hurt you!”

But Trump won’t shut up. He keeps talking. That’s his crime. That’s why they hate him. …

For example:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” the president said. “They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Trump didn’t claim that everyone coming over southern border is a criminal. But some are. That’s true. And precisely because it is true, you are absolutely, under no circumstances allowed to say it. Acknowledging that not every illegal alien improves America, raises an uncomfortable question: if illegal immigration has a downside, why has Washington allowed so much of it? If the people in charge actually cared about us, they would protect our borders. But they don’t care. So they’ve let millions and millions of foreigners, whose names we don’t even know for certain, stream in from abroad to use our services, lower our wages, and — yes, in some cases — commit crimes.

That’s all true. Which, almost by definition, made it unacceptable to say. The news anchors made it as it Trump was attacking defenseless Mexicans, but actually he was attacking them, the gatekeepers in our national media, the people who should have been sounding the alarm about all of this but instead made common cause with the ruling class they were supposed to be covering and keeping honest.

Our system is rotten and corrupt, and the news media are a major reason for why that is. That’s what Donald Trump pointed out, and, not surprisingly, they despised him for doing it.

Another example:

Ask yourself, what’s a bigger scandal to your average journalist? The fact that homicidal MS-13 gang members have flooded into this country from central America, and now terrorize communities from Los Angles to Long Island, OR, the possibility that some one might complain about that? …

The motto of MS-13 is literally “kill, rape, control.” You might not have known that, since details about what MS-13 actually is and what MS-13 actually does have received far less media attention than Donald Trump’s criticism of the gang.

Murdering the people with knives might be bad, but insulting illegal aliens and murderers is, in the moral hierarchy of Washington, a far graver sin. …

Or:

[Baltimore] is still sad, and desperate, and absolutely screwed up, and not one person in Washington DC cares at all that it is. Except to the extent that they want to make certain that you never think or talk about Baltimore, because thinking or talking about Baltimore, or for that matter, thinking or talking about … oh, I don’t know, mass immigration, the war in Afghanistan, middle class life expectancy in decline, pick something.

Thinking or talking about any of that might point up their own egregious failures and selfishness, which are profound. And whatever we do, we can’t bring that up because it’s embarrassing. So instead, let’s just agree that Donald Trump is a racist and a liar and move on.

Strong stuff. Tells a lot about how our Western society really works and why it is in decline.

Good to see that the theme of reality versus leftist fantasies which we’ve been pointing out for some years now, is gaining traction. It’s all about controlling the conversation to keep the fantasies alive, so it keeps our ruling class comfortable.

Extolling of Dark Emu ignores the doubt about its historical accuracy

Extolling of Dark Emu ignores the doubt about its historical accuracy, by the Mocker.

If indigenous author Bruce Pascoe is correct, most of what we were taught of how Aboriginals lived prior to the arrival of Europeans was based on a combination of ignorance, omissions and lies.

In his landmark book Dark Emu, Pascoe claims indigenous Australians were not hunter-gatherers but were sophisticated in the ways of food production, aquaculture, and land management. They were not nomads but lived in large towns in permanent dwellings. Their civilisation was, he wrote last year, “one that invented bread, society, language and the ability to live as 350 neighbouring nations without land war, not without rancour … but without a lust for land and power, without religious war, without slaves, without poverty but with a profound sense of responsibility for the health of Mother Earth for more than 120,000 years.” According to him they also invented democracy and government.

Well that sounds like important news. So the historical accounts of rampant domestic violence and tribal warfare were all made up? Somehow the indigenous tribes hid their cities and started beating up their women when white men sailed into view? Oh those evil white men.

Uh oh, the PC crew so want to believe it:

The book won the 2016 NSW Premier’s Literary Award and has sold over 100,000 copies. The ABC and Screen Australia have provided funding for a documentary series written by Pascoe. … A children’s version, “Young Dark Emu: A Truer History”, is now part of school curriculums. …

The ABC’s political correspondent, Andrew Probyn wrote this month that Dark Emu “demolish(es) the myth that Australia at the time of white settlement was a wilderness occupied by merely hunter gatherers”. ABC presenter Wendy Harmer referred to Pascoe as an “oracle”, and chief political writer Annabel Crabb tweeted admiringly regarding Dark Emu: “I don’t think I’ve ever learned so much from one slim volume”. Another ABC presenter, Benjamin Law, said “reading it should be a prerequisite to non-Indigenous citizenship”. Just this month RN Drive host Patricia Karvelas concluded an interview with Pascoe with a fawning endorsement of the book, urging listeners to buy it. “Just do it now,” she stated. …

Bruce Pascoe is aboriginal, and so beyond criticism:

To his detractors, he is a revisionist and fantasist. Writing for the Weekend Australian Magazine in May this year, journalist Richard Guilliatt observed “many academic experts also believe Dark Emu romanticises pre-contact indigenous society as an Eden of harmony and pacifism, when in fact it was often a brutally tough survivalist way of life”. But as Guilliatt also noted, there is a reluctance in academia to make public these criticisms given the author’s popularity and aboriginality. …

Those giving accolades to Pascoe seem oblivious to the many instances, particularly on the website Dark Emu Exposed, where readers have highlighted stark inconsistencies regarding what appears in his claims and what is outlined in the respective primary source.  …

A historian can be sure of at least a favourable reception, as in Pascoe’s case, if he or she promotes and defends the wretched at the expense of a so-called privileged demographic. To do the reverse, however, is taboo. …

This is the best Australian conspiracy theory ever, and just what the PC mob want to hear. For the ABC and the rest of the PC crew, truth can just bugger off. Pascoe’s tale feeds well into their campaign against white civilization.

Despite the many misgiving concerning Pascoe’s research and findings, Dark Emu shows every sign of being regarded as the most authoritative text in its field. Whether it be apathy or pusillanimity, our public institutions accept without question his conclusions, irrespective of the anomalies, or how ludicrous his premises.

But wait, you mean Bruce Pascoe is not really aboriginal? Andrew Bolt bravely notes:

Bruce Pascoe, author of the best-selling Dark Emu,  cannot keep calling himself Aboriginal — something that’s been so useful to his career.

That’s surely impossible now that he’s been contradicted not just by genealogical records but three prominent Aboriginal representatives. Pascoe says he’s a member of three Aboriginal tribes: the Yuin of NSW, the Boonwurrung of Victoria and some unspecified tribe of Tasmania. [Nope, Bolt quotes denials from all three.] …

Genealogical records that suggest all his ancestors descend from British forebears. …

The definition of Aboriginality in Australia is that you have some Aboriginal ancestry and are accepted as Aboriginal by those communities. Pascoe seems to fail on both counts.

What about the other pretty lies?

Advance Australia’s new boss Liz Storer on mobilising the ‘centre right’ to end political correctness

Advance Australia’s new boss Liz Storer on mobilising the ‘centre right’ to end political correctness. By Shannon Molloy.

If Bob Hawke was an early career politician today, the plain-talking larrikin would’ve inevitably offended a certain cohort on Twitter and become a victim of “cancel culture”.

That’s the view of Liz Storer, who’s settling into her new role as the boss of Advance Australia – the right’s version of left-wing activist group GetUp. …

“You know what I think the vast majority of mainstream Australians miss? The straight-talking Aussies of the past. I know I do,” Ms Storer told new.com.au.

Would get canceled today

“This political correctness rubbish has absolutely undermined our culture – our larrikinism, our very heritage. What we’ve become … this is not us.” …

Ms Storer claims the broader community has been paralysed by fear – a fear of saying the wrong thing, being shamed, having their businesses boycotted or being “bullied” online.

“I used to love watching political clips of Paul Keating, (Bob) Hawke – those guys were straight shooters before political correctness rotted the way we talk, the way we relate to each other, the way we do business, the way we conduct politics.

“These days, they would’ve absolutely been de-platformed.

Yep.

Progressives, God, and the Nazis

Progressives, God, and the Nazis, by Frank de Sousa.

With progressivism, where is the end toward which we are meant to be progressing? Can there be an end without a guiding telos? …

But what happens when God is killed, when God is dead? …

Nietzsche, of course, is famous for declaring just this fact — that God is dead. The town of Modernity was not big enough for both God and man, so man took care of God.

What is the practical consequence of this? Nietzsche, blessed (or cursed) with a preternatural prescience, told us just what this would entail. In “The Parable of the Madman”, … [the madman] excites considerable laughter from his audience [when he announced he was looking for God], for they are living in the Age of Reason, where the concept of God is ridiculous. …

The telos of existence will now be provided for by the imperative to survive, to stay the hand of extinction. In Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection … the purpose of life in Modernity is provided. …

The Germans, being the best-educated and most technically advanced population in the world at the time of the 1930s, understood the implications of this telos rather too well. As Nietzsche explained, the blond beast, the lion, has no need to apologise to the antelope for killing and eating it, for it is the lion, the king of the beasts. Nature, after all, is red in tooth and claw, for there is no good or bad in Nature, no right or wrong. There is just Nature.

So when the two-legged blond beasts proceeded to exercise the prerogatives Nature had conferred on them by mercilessly seeking after Lebensraum, there was no ethical system to hold them at bay, for Nature had emphatically given the go-ahead: the strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they must.

Nevertheless, the best-lain plans of mice and men often go awry. Contrary to the ordinances of Nature, the battle actually ended being to the weak, the race to the slow. The Untermenschen ended up crushing and prevailing over the Übermenschen, the Red Army inflicting the overwhelming majority of casualties suffered by the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front, which was the focus of most of the fighting in the European theatre.

Modernity recoiled at the excesses of the Nazis, many not quite yet ready to assimilate the implications of the death of God. …

Nietzsche showed that when we kill God, we kill all meaning, all purpose to life. We kill the telos. Nevertheless, standing at the precipice, surveying the promise of infinite nothingness before him, Nietzsche elected to leap into the abyss. He went mad. …

Progressives are not progressive in the sense of linear progress. They are simply incoherent – perpetually falling backwards, sideways, forwards, in all directions, with there being no up or down for them, no male or female, no right or wrong, simply straying as through an infinite nothing.

One of the main messages of the political philosopher Jesus Christ is that we will be held accountable for our deeds in this life, and that all are equal in the eyes of God. Revolutionary ideas indeed , which eventually displaced the “might is right” ethos and sexual predation that prevailed at the time. Jesus political impact reached its zenith perhaps in the 1800s, when white Christians freed the world’s slaves. After that, Marxists and Fabians have been busy overturning Christian ideals.

Bear in mind too that the Nazis were socialists, putting group rights and the state far above the individual. On the spectrum of communes versus individuals, they were well up the socialist end. They were progressives of their day, the way of the future according to most leftists of the 1930s.

The Nazis only appeared to the right of their main electoral rival around 1930 in Germany, the communists. The national socialists (Nazis) allowed private property but commandeered it whenever they wanted. The international socialists (communists) didn’t even allow private property — how woke is that? Of course, because leftist historians and opinion makers preferred the communists, they see Nazis as right wing. Oh what a sad joke.

98% of air passengers don’t care enough about climate change to buy a carbon offset

98% of air passengers don’t care enough about climate change to buy a carbon offset, by Joanne Nova.

There’s another round of push-poll fake surveys telling us how much the public want action on climate change. Part of the aim is to scare politicians and trick them into thinking that voters won’t vote for skeptics and will be happy to pay more for electricity, food, cars, and everything.

But the awful truth is that the voters “vote” with their own wallets every time they fly, and 98% of them don’t care enough to spend a single dollar. That’s even when the airlines do all the work and just ask their customers to “tick a box”.

Watch what people do, not what they say. We overwhelmingly don’t buy carbon offsets because we mostly don’t really believe the climate scare.

How the Left Weaponized Language

How the Left Weaponized Language, by Andrew Klavan.

Yes, and yes. Again, without control of the media, bureaucracy and academia, the left would not be able to do this.

Once an organization has become controlled by the left it stays that way, because the left will only hire other members of the left. It’s a ratchet. The organization is then permanently corrupt, in the sense that it no longer serves its intended purpose. Aka the “march though the institutions.”

Therefore, we need to scrap those organizations and start again.

Beware jumping on the Westpac bashwagon

Beware jumping on the Westpac bashwagon, by Miranda Devine.

If you can break a law 23 million times, maybe there’s something wrong with the law. If a law is so complex no one can comply with it, then the lawmakers are to blame, but they’re too busy yelling at Westpac for ­failing to notice 12 customers out of 14 million who may or may not be paedophiles.

It’s hard to muster sympathy for Westpac, but there’s something alarming about a bureaucracy, AUSTRAC, with the power to single-handedly fine one bank $400 trillion — about 250 times the size of the Australian economy.

It is a failure of government which has created an ever-­expanding raft of regulations too complicated for any bank to comply with. CommBank was also caught last year.

Paedophiles deserve to be strung up, but is it really the job of banks to police the activities of their customers?

If the government is suddenly so exercised about paedophiles overseas it ought to better fund joint police operations to catch Australian offenders.

Sure, there are a lot of problems with banks in particular, and with banking and the way money is manufactured in general. But this incident is more an instance of big government and bureaucratic overreach, of overbearing and incompetent regulation.

Impeachment: Are House Democrats Getting Cold Feet?

Impeachment: Are House Democrats Getting Cold Feet? By John Hinderaker.

My own view has long been that impeachment was a given once the Democrats captured the House majority last November. For them to retreat now, after two weeks of far-from-successful hearings, would be humiliating. The Democrats are a top-down party, and if House leadership demands “yes” votes on an impeachment resolution, it will get them. …

There was never a chance of President Trump being removed by the Senate. The effort all along has been to damage the president’s re-election chances. …

Still, the Democrats must be a little worried about what lies in store in the Senate. There, the shoe will be on the other foot: an increasingly aggressive Mitch McConnell will be in charge. I assume Senate Republicans will call Adam Schiff as a witness, and they certainly will call the whistleblower Democratic Party activist who collaborated with Schiff’s staff to set this silly proceeding in motion. They also are likely to call Joe and Hunter Biden as witnesses, to explore the Obama administration corruption that President Trump allegedly was trying to investigate. It has been reported that three different Senate committees are now investigating not only the Biden family’s Ukraine corruption ($3 million worth!), but also the Obama/Biden administration’s solicitation of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 presidential election. That, too, could be explored in a Senate trial. …

So, in my view, President Trump will be impeached, simply because the Democrats have no way to go but forward. From there on, the path gets rocky. With luck (and an assist from John Roberts) the Senate “trial” turns into a fiasco for them.

The bottom line is that at the end of the day, the Democrats will gain nothing from their impeachment obsession, and may instead be the net loser.