An Immigrant in Sweden Is Doing the Jobs Swedes Just Won’t Do: Welfare Embezzler, Wife Beater, Boy Botherer, and Defense Minister of Iraq

An Immigrant in Sweden Is Doing the Jobs Swedes Just Won’t Do: Welfare Embezzler, Wife Beater, Boy Botherer, and Defense Minister of Iraq, by The Local, a Swedish newspaper. The awesome headline is by Steve Sailer.

Iraqi Defense Minister Najah al-Shammari meets with US Defense Secretary Mike Esper

Iraq’s defence minister, Najah al-Shammari, has been reported for benefits fraud in Sweden after allegedly claiming child and housing support for years, despite living in Baghdad, according to reports in Sweden.

Al-Shammari, who is registered in Sweden with the surname Najah Al-Adeli, emigrated to Sweden in 2009, became a Swedish citizen in 2015, and is reportedly still officially registered as living in the Stockholm suburb of Vårby. …

The 52-year-old has also previously received sick pay, claiming that memory problems left him unable to work. A judgement in the Swedish Civil Courts obtained by Expressen stated that al-Shammari and his family had, “for a long time been partly dependent on welfare support”. …

According to the Nyheter Idag, the couple have also claimed that their children attend a Stockholm private school.

Al-Shammari was also charged in 2016 for a serious crime, and held in pre-trial detention, but the case was dropped just a few days before the trial began. …

Steve Sailer:

In other Al-Shammari news, which apparently is blowing up in Sweden, he is a wife beater and a pederast. The daughter of the Iraqi Defense Minister / Swedish welfare queen says:

“All the trouble in our family, between mom and dad, is because dad is gay.”

The Defense Minister sexts young Swedish men with Gay Borat-style come-ons like:

The young man declines to meet, but the Minister of Defense continues to propel on. “You my love”, writes al-Shammari and continues with “And meet sex sex sex I love you”.

It’s not just our ruling class who are incompetent and misleading.

Peggy Noonan Reminds Us Why Trump Won

Peggy Noonan Reminds Us Why Trump Won, by Bruce Thornton.

Three years after outsider Donald Trump blew up the political world with his implausible victory over the consummate insider, Hillary Clinton, many establishment Republicans still don’t get it. From their elite cocoon, they continue to indulge the hauteur that put off ordinary voters who had grown tired of a fossilized political class that serially ignored their interests, and seemed more concerned with their own insider perks and privilege, rather than in repairing the damage that decades of bipartisan progressive technocracy had inflicted on the Constitutional order.

The grande dame of the disgruntled NeverTrump Republicans has been the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan …

Noonan’s latest is an attack on the Republicans’ behavior during the House impeachment hearings …

Her comments about the Republicans reveal the underlying grounds for NeverTrump hatred: the resentment against those who don’t accept the progressive assumptions that politics is the business of a self-proclaimed guild possessing knowledge, techniques, and professional manners and decorum that the voting masses don’t have. …

Impeachment:

Consider this example from the testimony of acting ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor — which the mainstream press hyped as a “bombshell,” and whom Noon praises as an exemplar of professionalism––as summarized by David Marcus in the New York Post: “He said David Holmes, a counselor for political affairs at the US embassy in Kiev, told him that he had overheard a phone conversation between Ambassador Gordon Sondland and President Trump.” In what courtroom other than the old Soviet Union or Cuba today would this twice-removed hearsay be admitted?

Likewise in the Kavanaugh hearings, the Democrats were contriving specious charges to derail a confirmation they had no plausible merit-based arguments for rejecting. In the current hearings, the Democrats are again contriving specious charges for impeaching a president against whom three years of a Special Prosecutor’s investigation have not produced credible charges that rise to the “high crimes and misdemeanors” Constitutional standard. That’s why the Dems have dropped the “quid pro quo” and are attempting to call the legal and obligatory conditions for giving a country foreign aid “bribery” and “extortion,” using the same Orwellian corruption of words that turns a mutually consensual but later regretted sexual encounter into “sexual assault.”

Class snobbishness on the loose:

Noonan goes on to expand on her elevation of “professionalism” by giving us the res gestae of acting ambassador William Taylor, consisting mainly of his military record. She also singled out George P. Kent, highlighting his degrees from Johns Hopkins and Harvard, and his 27 years in foreign service. Again, the NeverTrump preference for sizzle over steak, evident in Noonan’s “They seemed [N.B.] to have capability and integrity.” Why? The right credentials — military service and Ivy League degrees — are assumed to bespeak achievements benefitting the American people, just as a polished delivery suggests “integrity.” Maybe these gentlemen have such achievements and virtue, but reading off their CVs and praising their demeanor are not dispositive, and say nothing about the veracity or worth of their testimony.

Indeed, when it comes to foreign affairs, generations of highly credentialed foreign policy mandarins have not compiled a record that would suggest those credentials contribute to success. The two most consequential failures include misreading the Iranian Revolution as an anticolonial bid for freedom and popular sovereignty, rather than a religious revolution aimed at creating an Islamic theocracy; and failing to foresee and thus prepare for the collapse of the Soviet Union, something that was unthinkable to the big brains of our foreign policy establishment.

Moreover, the great foreign policy success in the postwar period was victory in the Cold War, which was the accomplishment of an ex-actor and foreign policy amateur looked down on by the government agency “professionals.” They contemptuously dismissed Reagan’s common-sense wisdom like “we win, they lose,” “evil empire,” and “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” The latter iconic phrase, by the way, was argued against by the State Department and National Security Council because it was too provocative and naïve.

The simple truth that people like Noonan miss is that credentials, including military service, no matter how sterling or impressive, do not necessarily bespeak wisdom or future achievement, any more than exquisite manners, as Jane Austen has taught us, bespeak a true gentleman.

Defiant Hong Kong delivers Beijing a hiding in elections

Defiant Hong Kong delivers Beijing a hiding in elections, by Hedley Thomas.

Hong Kong voters have capped five months of democracy protests, violence and anarchy with the most crushing electoral blow yet to the government and administration of Chief Executive Carrie Lam.

The overwhelming rejection of establishment candidates and the pro-Beijing camp that have backed Ms Lam was telegraphed in district council elections held peacefully on Sunday and counted yesterday.

All but one of Hong Kong’s 18 local councils are now controlled by democrats. At the last election in 2015, the pro-Beijing establishment controlled all 18.

Almost 90 per cent of all 452 seats contested were won by anti-government candidates as pro-­Beijing candidates were trounced. The pro-democracy camp secured only about 100 seats in 2015. …

Doesn’t that add some legitimacy to the Hong Kong democracy movement? In a way that violent protests never could.

Why do Chinese students think it’s OK to cheat?

Why do Chinese students think it’s OK to cheat? By Kelly Yang.

In recent years, cheating has got so out of control that, three years ago, in the small town of Zhongxiang, Hubei ( ?? ), a group of gaokao invigilators found themselves under siege as enraged parents and students trapped them in their office and threw rocks at the windows, shouting, “We want fairness! Let us cheat!”

It’s not just the gaokao – it’s the SAT, the GRE, and a whole host of other exams. An estimated 90 per cent of all recommendation letters for Chinese applicants to United States universities are fake. Some 70 per cent of application essays are not written by students, and 50 per cent of grades transcripts are falsified.

Once the students arrive on campus, more cheating services are available. Last month, Reuters published a devastating report on cheating by Chinese students in the US, finding a thriving black market which includes services to write essays, do the students’ homework, and take their exams. It seems you can now get a degree from an Ivy League school without ever leaving your house!

Stop telling men they’re defective women

Stop telling men they’re defective women, by Suzanne Vencker.

Read carefully, and you’ll notice that almost every article on the struggles couples face with respect to the work-family battle blames men. The cultural narrative is that women do it all, while the men in their lives are Neanderthals who need to get with the program.

The saddest part of this bogus message, aside from the obvious damage it creates, is that it’s so far from the truth it’s ridiculous. …

One reason for the relentless male-bashing is that women have been taught to believe the sexes are the same and, as a result, assume that when men don’t behave the way women do, men are somehow failing. …

Men and women do not parent the same way because they’re not interchangeable beings. …

Bottom line:

Men are not defective women. But that’s what the culture teaches through films, television (even commercials!), and articles. Sadly, this belief system has seeped into women’s souls, causing them to believe men are weak or lazy when they don’t do things the way women do them or when they don’t react the way women react.

Women who harbor this mindset will never be successful in love. Only women who understand the unique nature of men, who don’t blame men whenever something goes wrong, who harbor compassion rather than resentment toward men, and who are able to bring out the best in men will ultimately win at love.

The rest get frustrated and write articles about it.

Speaking of men being defective women, some light comedy from South Park:

hat-tip Mark Ellis

Tim Allen on the 2020 US election

Tim Allen on the 2020 US election, by Tim Allen.

Women are upset at Trump’s naughty words — they also bought 80 million copies of 50 Shades of Gray.

Not one feminist has defended Sarah Sanders. It seems women’s rights only matter if those women are liberal.

No Border Walls. No voter ID laws. Did you figure it out yet? But wait… there’s more.

Chelsea Clinton got out of college and got a job at NBC that paid $900,000 per year. Her mom flies around the country speaking out about white privilege.

And just like that, they went from being against foreign interference in our elections to allowing non-citizens to vote in our elections.

President Trump’s wall costs less than the Obamacare website. Let that sink in, America.

We are one election away from open borders, socialism, gun confiscation, and full-term abortion nationally. We are fighting evil.

They sent more troops and armament to arrest Roger Stone than they sent to defend Benghazi.

60 years ago, Venezuela was 4th on the world economic freedom index. Today, they are 179th and their citizens are dying of starvation. In only 10 years, Venezuela was destroyed by democratic socialism.

Russia donated $0.00 to the Trump campaign. Russia donated $145,600,000 to the Clinton Foundation. But Trump was the one investigated!

Nancy Pelosi invited illegal aliens to the State of the Union. President Trump Invited victims of illegal aliens to the State of the Union. Let that sink in. …

How do you walk 3000 miles across Mexico without food or support and show up at our border 100 pounds overweight and with a cellphone? …

Bill Clinton paid $850,000 to Paula Jones To get her to go away. I don’t remember the FBI raiding his lawyer’s office.

Don’t know who actor Tim Allen is? Here he is, hungover, telling off an alien bad guy in Galaxy Quest, a surprisingly good Star Trek spoof:

hat-tip Jeremy

The Trouble With Tulsi

The Trouble With Tulsi, by John Hinderaker.

Tulsi Gabbard is the most interesting candidate in the Democratic presidential field, but that isn’t how her party sees her. Politico reports: “Democratic establishment reaches boiling point with Tulsi Gabbard.” The knives are out:

“Tulsi Gabbard trashed the Democratic Party as “not the party that is of, by and for the people,” accused Kamala Harris of trafficking in “lies and smears and innuendo” and attacked Pete Buttigieg as naive. …”

Hillary Clinton’s assertion that Gabbard is a Russian agent was the most bizarre outpouring of her increasingly weird post-defeat career, but the fact that she made such a claim, and the tepid response to it by Democratic leaders, shows how deeply Gabbard is despised within her own party. …

She stands out because she doesn’t hate America:

Tulsi’s lane is the one for liberals, not who hate the Democratic Party, but who love America. Her near-isolationism is that of a veteran who loves America and its military. In that, she contrasts sharply with the rest of the field. Visceral anti-military and anti-American views have been central to the Democratic Party for a long time. Bernie Sanders, to take just one obvious instance, didn’t honeymoon in the Soviet Union because he is proud to be an American.

Mainstream Democratic candidates don’t announce their anti-Americanism out loud, of course. You generally need to infer it from their policies. But the presence of an actual patriot on the stage–and one, too, who considers Republicans to be fellow Americans–presents an obvious and unwelcome contrast. …

The Democrats say they want a woman to be president, but they don’t mean it. When they have a woman on the debate stage who shares their views but not their hateful attitudes toward America and non-leftist Americans, they treat her like a skunk at a garden party.

Unlike the Godless left, who hate themselves — perhaps out of unforgiven guilt — and project it onto others. What an unhappy bunch.

Cory Bernardi alone had no real chance

Cory Bernardi alone had no real chance, by Nick Cater.

The timing of Cory Bernardi’s 12-week sabbatical to the UN in New York in 2016 was unfortunate. Donald Trump was rousing conservative hearts on the presidential campaign trail by exposing the weakness of the political establishment, not least within his own party.

Cory Bernadi

The news from home was disheartening. His colleagues’ belief that they could change leaders without changing the party had turned out to be misplaced. ­Malcolm Turnbull was not the dazzling product advertised on the packet, although his colleagues should have known that, having opened the packet once before. Bernardi and other Turnbull sceptics had good cause to say “I told you so”.

Those circumstances provide an explanation, but not an ­excuse, for an act of political self-immolation that burnt millions of dollars and many good people along the way. Bernardi’s career-ending decision to leave the Liberals was an act of exasperation at what he ­regarded as the party’s leftward drift that ignored its ability to self-correct. …

His departure leaves a gap in parliament that will be hard to fill. Bernardi had the courage to say what other conservatives merely thought. He possessed the intellectual confidence to challenge groupthink even when it disturbed the comfort of members of his own party. …

Like Menzies?

Bernardi’s claim on the night of his defection that he was acting in the spirit of Robert Menzies was a stretch, to put it mildly. Menzies built the Liberal Party by uniting disparate forces, not tearing them apart.

The story of the centre-right in Australia before the Liberal Party’s foundation in 1944 is one of transient coalitions, clashing personalities and not a little ­confusion. The story since then is of a party that has been in government for far more years than it has been out of it, governing in a Coalition of unrivalled longevity and stability. …

How do we find an Australian Trump?

Australian conservatives who yearn for their own Trump might take this opportunity to ponder why this amiable, well-­intentioned outsider turned out not to be their man.

One obvious but not insignificant precondition for Trump’s victory comes to mind. He was elected as a member of the ­Republican Party.

How the great truth dawned

How the great truth dawned, by Gary Saul Morson.

From 1876 to 1904, a period when Russian terrorists killed many top officials, including Tsar Alexander II, the regime executed 486 people, or 17 per year. …

Of course, from 1917 to the death of Stalin in 1953, 2,200 was about the number of people killed on an average day. …

Why is it, Solzhenitsyn asks, that Macbeth, Iago, and other Shakespearean evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses, while Lenin and Stalin did in millions? The answer is that Macbeth and Iago “had no ideology.” Ideology makes the killer and torturer an agent of good, “so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors.” Ideology never achieved such power and scale before the twentieth century. …

Solzhenitsyn explains: “To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good, or else that it’s a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. . . . it is in the nature of a human being to seek a justification for his actions.” …

The political left in the West at the moment:

Anyone can succumb to ideology. All it takes is a sense of one’s own moral superiority for being on the right side; a theory that purports to explain everything; and — this is crucial — a principled refusal to see things from the point of view of one’s opponents or victims, lest one be tainted by their evil viewpoint. …

Why the left hates religion:

Only someone who rejected all religious or quasi-religious morals could be a Bolshevik because, as Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and other Bolshevik leaders insisted, the only standard of right and wrong was success for the Party. …

Among Gulag memoirists, even the atheists acknowledge that the only people who did not succumb morally were the believers. Which religion they professed did not seem to matter. …

The great truth dawned: unexpectedly, astonishingly, this harrowing story of cattle cars and the secret brand has a redemptive ending. A person — not a hero, just a flawed person — finds faith. Everybody has been indoctrinated with the slogan that, in a material world where nothing beyond the laws of nature exists, “The result is all that counts.” But camp experience taught that that was a lie.

It is not the result that counts . . . but the spirit!” Once you realize this, “then imprisonment begins to transform your character in an astonishing way.” You begin to appreciate friendship differently. Recognizing your own weakness, you understand the weakness of others. When another prisoner relates how he became a Christian, Solzhenitsyn recognizes that when he had been most certain he was doing good he was actually doing evil. He understands “the truths of all the religions of the world: They struggle with the evil inside a human being (every human being).

Ed Driscoll:

And that socialist ideology would eventually pour out of the Soviet Union, to be aped by Germany’s National Socialism and Mussolini’s socialist-inspired fascism. … In 1882, Nietzsche declared that “God is Dead.”

And as a consequence, “predicted (in Ecce Homo) that the twentieth century would be a century of ‘wars such as have never happened on earth,’ wars catastrophic beyond all imagining. And why? Because human beings would no longer have a god to turn to, to absolve them of their guilt; but they would still be racked by guilt, since guilt is an impulse instilled in children when they are very young, before the age of reason. As a result, people would loathe not only one another but themselves. The blind and reassuring faith they formerly poured into their belief in God, said Nietzsche, they would now pour into a belief in barbaric nationalistic brotherhoods.”

The Empire Strikes Back

The Empire Strikes Back, by Michael Anton.

The experts don’t like to be challenged — especially by non-expert voters or the politicians they elect to limit administrative state power. Here, finally, we come to the “truest cause, though least in speech” of the impeachment freight train: the administrative state is striking back at a mortal threat. As [Professor John Marini] explained in a recent speech,

Many great scandals arise not as a means of exposing corruption, but as a means of attacking political foes while obscuring the political differences that are at issue. This is especially likely to occur in the aftermath of elections that threaten the authority of an established order. In such circumstances, scandal provides a way for defenders of the status quo to undermine the legitimacy of those who have been elected on a platform of challenging the status quo—diluting, as a consequence, the authority of the electorate.” …

It is no accident or coincidence that the only three presidents who have fundamentally challenged the administrative state — and questioned its song sheet, the “U.S. government policy community consensus”—  have been dogged by “scandal” and threatened with impeachment: Richard Nixon by Watergate, Ronald Reagan by Iran Contra, and now Trump. (Whatever you think of Bill Clinton’s impeachment, it was emphatically not driven or supported by the administrative state, which protected him at every turn.) Trump would likely take this as small consolation, but it’s a measure of how much he’s feared that his enemies are running this play against him now, rather than simply trying to defeat him next year. Which more than suggests they doubt they can.

Challenge the administrative state, and they try to bring you down with scandal

Simply based on what we know so far, the whole thing looks engineered, like those “lawfare” cases in which clever lawyers and activists find sympathetic plaintiffs, carefully choose friendly venues, and file lawsuits not to redress specific, genuine injustices but to force changes in policy—anti-democratically, it goes without saying. …

I don’t see it. Especially since a) no aid was actually withheld; b) no investigation was actually launched; c) the American people don’t care about Ukraine and would probably prefer to get their $400 million back; and d) they would inevitably ask: so were, in fact, Joe Biden and his son on the take from a foreign government? And if it looks like they might have been, why, exactly, was it improper for the president to ask about it? …

If the Republicans “collude” with this sham and force the removal of a president whose approval rating within his party hovers north of 90%, and whose voters scarcely understand—much less agree with—the “case” against him, they will destroy the party forever.

‘Ford v Ferrari’ shows how masculinity can make the world a better place

‘Ford v Ferrari’ shows how masculinity can make the world a better place, by Kyle Smith.

The new film “Ford v Ferrari” is a celebration of three of the most important energy sources in the world: capitalism, gasoline and testosterone.

The race-car drama flattened the latest tired, feminist iteration of “Charlie’s Angels” last weekend at the box office, proving that there’s an appetite for stories that haven’t been told a thousand times before and also for good old star luster, embodied by Christian Bale as British racer Ken Miles and Matt Damon as the Texas racer turned car designer Carroll Shelby. Yet “Ford v Ferrari” isn’t just a fun movie about pressing the pedal to the medal, it’s also an unapologetic salute to all the stuff we’ve forgotten is awesome: America, capitalism, corporations, competition, cars and especially hard-charging, fist-pumping, danger-scorning masculinity. …

Audiences are thrilling to “Ford v Ferrari” because in an age when every corner of the culture is shrieking “toxic masculinity,” the movie is a true account of how masculinity can make the world a better place. That obsessive need to compete pushes man to higher and higher levels. Sometimes that instinct to fight over everything — “to find quarrel in a straw,” in Hamlet’s words — manifests itself in strange ways, as when the two principals beat each other up with the contents of a sack of groceries. The New Yorker dubbed this scene “an erotic tangle,” but the spirit of it is Mars, not Eros. The two men are essentially brothers, and sometimes brothers communicate with their fists. Bravo to a movie that resists the mass psychosis telling us that there is something inherently wrong with acting like a man.

Watch The Intellectuals

Watch The Intellectuals, by Rod Dreher.

Hundreds of “anti-hate” protesters took to the UC Berkeley campus tonight to protest Ann Coulter’s speech, and to try to prevent people from going in to hear her. …

Yes, it’s Berkeley, but you know as well as I do that if right-wingers were forming a human wall preventing people from going to hear a prominent left-wing speaker, it would be on all the national news outlets, and we would be talking about the Coming Crisis Of Fascism. But as it is, this is just another day in progressive America.

Seriously, what if a mob of white people at a major American university banded together to prevent people of color and their allies from going into a hall to hear Ta-Nehisi Coates speak? How do you think our media would frame it? They would report the hell out of it, and they should report the hell out of it, because a mob preventing anybody from going to hear someone speak is un-American, and a serious violation of our traditions. This should not happen in America, and especially not at a university.

But like I said: just another day in progressive America. …

Why it matters … coming soon to you:

If you think this is going to stay in Berkeley, you’re mistaken. This mob action might not spread to places outside of the coasts, but here’s what’s going to happen: those young people who join the mobs, they are going to graduate and move into the institutions of American life. They are going to carry their militant illiberalism, including their contempt for free speech and open discourse, into those institutions, and are going to do their damnedest to institutionalize them.

One thing I have learned from the past few months spent studying Soviet-bloc communism: watch the intellectual class. It is a very big mistake to think that what they say and do only matters in the shadow of the ivory tower. They are the ones who produce the ideas that are eventually spread through society. If you don’t care about this stuff when it happens now, on campuses, you had better prepare yourself to be made to care later, when graduates of these campuses are setting corporate policy, or serving as gatekeepers to the institutions you want your “deplorable” kids to get into. This is not a joke.

John Maynard Keynes:

Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.

Welcome to Shut-up Country

Welcome to Shut-up Country, by Tim Blair.

In the manner of the two world wars, the global war on free speech is fought across multiple theatres and between a broad range of combatants: some of them unlikely allies, some prone to switches of allegiance, and some operating behind enemy lines. …

Welcome to Country:

This battlefield is notoriously difficult to calculate. For every banned phrase there is a phrase that is absolutely required. A friend the other day happened upon a Welcome to Country curtsey in a book: “I would like to acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of this nation. I pay my respects to Elders, past, present and emerging, and acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which events in this book took place, particularly the Eora people and Noongar people.”

To avoid any immediate sniper fire, let me say at this point that I pay my respects to Elders past, present, emerging, imaginary, unborn, transgender, vegan, IXL and Limited, and acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which this column was written. I guess that means my landlords, a top couple who built the very first house on this lot. …

Unhelpful truths about PC mascots are not tolerated by PC scolds:

Bill Leak cartoon in the Australian

Bill Leak cartoon PC comment

Islam in Sydney:

If you saw a fellow wandering along a Sydney street in black robes while shooting people, you might be inclined to alert fellow citizens. Parramatta real estate agent Edwin Almeida did so in 2015 when he witnessed the activities of teenager Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar, who’d murdered New South Wales police accountant Curtis Cheng by shooting him in the back of the head.

“I saw the man wielding a handgun, dressed in black robes,” Almeida told reporters. But the Guardian’s Calla Wahlquist decided he’d offered too much information. “I won’t go into reports about what the man identified by eyewitnesses as carrying a gun was wearing or what he looked like,” she decided.

Those black robes, you see, might have indicated the killer’s Muslim faith and even his motive (accurately, as it turned out). And so news of them had to be concealed. Keep that in mind whenever you hear reports expressing utter bewilderment about the motives of any fellow offering a pre-slaughter “Allahu Akbar!” battle cry.

There may well be a clue in those words.

Read it all.

Political correctness kills

Political correctness kills, By Joan McCaul.

On the third of October, 2019, Mickael Harpon went to work at police headquarters on the Île de la Cité in Paris and slaughtered four of his work colleagues.

Mickael Harpon, “Allahu Akbar!”

He knifed three men and one woman as they went about their daily business. These are the hard facts. The shock and sadness was felt in Australia, on the other side of the world, so it’s not hard to imagine how news of the attack affected Parisians. The savagery and brutality of what occurred on 3 October is hard to comprehend, but it’s one more heart-breaking incident in the litany of tragedy that has affected Paris in recent years. …

Interior Minister Christophe Castaner … said initially that what had happened was an enigma, a completely unforeseen act which was out of character for the perpetrator Harpon, who was an IT specialist working in the police department. Harpon was apparently a model citizen, a virtual boy scout who had never shown any violent tendencies nor caused any problems during his employment in the department. According to Castaner, 45-year-old Harpon had no history to suggest he would take this course of action. It was all unpredictable and a complete mystery as to why he would suddenly snap. …

It only took around twenty-four hours for this to be exposed for the falsehood it was. Far from being a model citizen, Harpon had expressed support for the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo massacre and his social media showed he was virulently anti-Semitic. His posts revealed that for years he had extolled the virtues of extremism and far from being a quiet model worker beavering away in a back room, he was an adherent of Salafism, a strict form of Sunni belief, quite incompatible with the job he was ostensibly hired to do. When this history became known (it only took a quick internet search) Castanet was under attack, with a petition calling for his sacking attracting thousands of signatures. …

The West’s incompetent mendacious ruling class strikes again:

Events like the atrocity of 3 October are emblematic of the reasons people have lost faith in the political class. When issuing false information in the aftermath of a tragedy is the preferred response on the part of the minister responsible, immense damage is done to the fragile contract between those being governed and those doing the governing.

Left-Wing Journalist on Sweden’s Migrant Suburbs: “Everyone Knew it Would End in Disaster”

Left-Wing Journalist on Sweden’s Migrant Suburbs: “Everyone Knew it Would End in Disaster”, by Paul Joseph Watson.

A left-wing journalist in Sweden who vehemently supported mass immigration has changed her tune, admitting that when it came to Sweden’s crime-ridden no-go areas, “everyone knew it would end in disaster.”

Migrant cuts throat of Swedish student and stabs him 13 times – brags to friends about it

Aftonbladet’s Lena Mellin now acknowledges that Sweden’s attempt to integrate huge numbers of migrants from Africa and the Middle East has failed.

“All parties, with the possible exception of the Left Party and the Sweden Democrats [SD], who hardly affected the reality on this point, should be ashamed,” writes 64-year-old Mellin. …

But think of all the moral virtue points the left got for those precious few years when they imported third world Muslims and preened about as the “humanitarian superpower”. Priceless.

“For more than a decade Sweden’s ruling class — including political leaders and the media — has denied that there are any problems in the country’s banlieues caused by the mass importation of Third World immigrants. Except for problems caused by those WAYCIST Swedes, of course,” writes the Gates of Vienna blog.

“Now it seems that the truth about cultural enrichment has become so blatant that it can no longer be denied. The response of the Swedish media establishment? “We knew all along that things would end badly; we just forgot to tell you.” And they blame the politicians.”

Now for the never-ending hangover (or is that cancer?). Buy in haste, repent in leisure.

Differences between Clinton and Trump impeachments

Differences between Clinton and Trump impeachments, by the Lion of the Blogosphere. A couple of good, big-picture points that many overlook:

Clinton: The mainstream media supported the President who was being impeached.
Trump: The mainstream media supports the impeachment, and is far more willing to bias its news reporting than it was 20 years ago.

Donald Trump poses with Bill Clinton, Melania Trump and Sports Illustrated swimsuit model Kylie Bax in 2000.

Clinton: Democrats in Congress loved their President.
Trump: Republicans in Congress hate their President and wish they could have President Pence instead, but only hold back because they think they would suffer at the polls for abandoning Trump.

BTDT comments:

You also have to take into consideration the enormous distrust that most Americans feel toward the mainstream media. In the 90’s people had much more respect for the media and the establishment in general. That is gone. Now almost half the population realizes that very same establishment is against them and wants to undermine the legitimacy of both the 2016 and 2020 elections. The resistance against Trump is backfiring.

Lion:

Unfortunately, it’s a lot less than half the people. By hanging out in an online right-wing echo chamber, you have a false impression of what the average prole understands.

Black Death:

Another difference, of course, is that Clinton was really guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, while it’s still not clear what laws Trump has allegedly broken. The Democrat-controlled House now may or may not pass a bill of impeachment, but there is no way the twenty Senate Republicans are going to vote to convict. …

I still have mixed feelings about the failure to convict Clinton. At the time, it seemed pretty clear that he was guilty, but the Democrats voted mostly along party lines to let him off, perhaps setting a dangerous precedent.

AG Barr says Jeffrey Epstein death was result of ‘perfect storm of screw ups’

AG Barr says Jeffrey Epstein death was result of ‘perfect storm of screw ups’. By Brooke Singman.

Attorney General William Barr said that disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide death was the result of “a perfect storm of screw ups.”

Barr, during an interview with the Associated Press late Thursday, said that his concerns about Epstein’s death were prompted by numerous irregularities at Metropolitan Correctional Center in Lower Manhattan where he was being held. …

“I can understand people who immediately, whose minds went to sort of the worst-case scenario because it was a perfect storm of screw-ups,” Barr said. …

Barr told the Associated Press that the evidence proves that his death was, in fact, by suicide, adding that he personally reviewed security footage that confirmed that no one entered the area where Epstein was housed the night he died.

The conspiracy theories on this one will never end, and we’ll never be sure. Another bit of ambiguity to live with.

The Leisure Class — SJWs are Social Climbers Killing Our Civilization

The Leisure Class — SJWs are Social Climbers Killing Our Civilization, by Rob Henderson.

On campus, I realized that luxury beliefs have become fashionable status symbols. Luxury beliefs are ideas and opinions that confer status on the rich at very little cost, while taking a toll on the lower class.

In the past, people displayed their membership of the upper class with their material accoutrements. But today, luxury goods are more affordable than before. And people are less likely to receive validation for the material items they display. This is a problem for the affluent, who still want to broadcast their high social position. But they have come up with a clever solution. The affluent have decoupled social status from goods, and re-attached it to beliefs.

Human beings become more preoccupied with social status once our physical needs are met. In fact, research reveals that sociometric status (respect and admiration from peers) is more important for well-being than socioeconomic status. …

Thorstein Veblen’s famous “leisure class” has evolved into the “luxury belief class.” Veblen, an economist and sociologist, made his observations about social class in the late nineteenth century. He compiled his observations in his classic work, The Theory of the Leisure Class. A key idea is that because we can’t be certain of the financial standing of other people, a good way to size up their means is to see whether they can afford to waste money on goods and leisure. This explains why status symbols are so often difficult to obtain and costly to purchase. These include goods such as delicate and restrictive clothing like tuxedos and evening gowns, or expensive and time-consuming hobbies like golf or beagling. Such goods and leisurely activities could only be purchased or performed by those who did not live the life of a manual laborer and could spend time learning something with no practical utility. …

Veblen proposed that the wealthy flaunt these symbols not because they are useful, but because they are so pricey or wasteful that only the wealthy can afford them, which is why they’re high-status indicators. …

The chief purpose of luxury beliefs is to indicate evidence of the believer’s social class and education. … When an affluent person advocates for drug legalization, or anti-vaccination policies, or open borders, or loose sexual norms, or uses the term “white privilege,” they are engaging in a status display. They are trying to tell you, “I am a member of the upper class.”

Affluent people promote open borders or the decriminalization of drugs because it advances their social standing, not least because they know that the adoption of those policies will cost them less than others. … Advocating for open borders and drug experimentation are good ways of advertising your membership of the elite because, thanks to your wealth and social connections, they will cost you less than me.

Unfortunately, the luxury beliefs of the upper class often trickle down and are adopted by people lower down the food chain, which means many of these beliefs end up causing social harm. Take polyamory. I had a revealing conversation recently with a student at an elite university. He said that when he sets his Tinder radius to five miles, about half of the women, mostly other students, said they were “polyamorous” in their bios. Then, when he extended the radius to 15 miles to include the rest of the city and its outskirts, about half of the women were single mothers. The costs created by the luxury beliefs of the former are borne by the latter. Polyamory is the latest expression of sexual freedom championed by the affluent. They are in a better position to manage the complications of novel relationship arrangements. And if these relationships don’t work out, they can recover thanks to their financial capability and social capital. The less fortunate suffer by adopting the beliefs of the upper class. …

Status has shifted to the beliefs we express. And beliefs are less expensive than goods because anyone can adopt them. They are not financially costly. And according to Veblen, along with other social observers like Paul Fussell, ordinary people try to emulate the upper classes.

Which is a major reason behind the outbreak of crazy PC ideas. They are stupid fantasies supposed to indicate status of the utterer, but of course if widely adopted become quite harmful to society at large.

Is our civilization to succumb because of social climbers in an age of material wealth?

Social justice warriors take a sledgehammer to the truth

Social justice warriors take a sledgehammer to the truth, by Janet Albrechtsen.

Example 1:

Earlier this year, a Year 10 girl accused her teacher of sexism because he gave her detention after she refused to behave in class. Some boys had mucked up too and when told to pay attention they did. The teacher told the girl to test her assertion this way: if she behaved and he still reprimanded her, then yes, some kind of injustice was being done to her.

It is not hard to understand why the girl, barely a few years off becom­ing an adult, would make accusa­tions of sexism rather than accept responsibility for her actions. …

Example 2:

Her antics were repeated by a grown-up, a member of American band Black Eyed Peas no less, on board a Qantas plane last Saturday. The behaviour of rapper Will.i.am during a Qantas flight from Brisbane to Sydney is not a random tantrum by a spoilt celebrity. If only. …

The behaviour of will.i.am is serious because it carries all the common traits among a growing cohort in our modern age: a deep-seated sense of entitlement, that the rules do not apply to him; claiming to be a victim to extricate oneself from shoddy behaviour rather than taking personal responsibility; using powerful words as weapons to wreck a person’s reputation, in a way that will ultimately rip meaning from words; and shaming anyone who dares question any of the above.

Wearing sound-cancelling earphones during his Qantas flight, the singer ignored instructions to stow his laptop for landing. Maybe he didn’t hear, and then the right reaction would be to apologise, and to stow the laptop just as other passengers are required to do. The rule exists to stop items, especially laptops, from becoming dangerous projectiles during bumpy landings.

Instead he lashed out at the flight attendant, tweeting: “I don’t want to believe she racist. But she has clearly aimed all her frustrations only at the people of colour.” …

But the injustice happened at the hands of the rapper when he named and shamed a flight attendant, defaming her as a racist to his 12-million-plus Twitter followers. …

The rapper told one newspaper: “Hopefully this is a lesson. She shouldn’t lose her job over it — if anything she should be retrained on how to deal with people. This is an opportunity to be pleasant to everyone.”

Commentary and politics:

This has been one heck of lesson — about how a social justice movement is now riddled with injustice. When will.i.am pretended to be a victim, he inevitably mocked genuine victims. When he accused a flight attendant of racism, he neutered the power of words to describe real racism. When he named and shamed the flight attendant, he blew the whistle on intimidation done in the misplaced name of social justice.

The communists had the hammer and sickle to symbolise proletarian solidarity among farmers and construction workers. The social justice warriors should have a sledgehammer resting next to a witch’s cauldron to symbolise the bullies using noxious social media cauldrons to distort words, language and truth to assert power over the masses.

Each step taken by will.i.am during and after that Qantas flight is standard operating practice in a morally ambiguous social justice movement that has an armoury of truth-distorting weapons. Politicians such as Greens leader Richard Di Natale describe views he disagrees with as “hate speech”, a strong accusation aimed at censoring and shaming people. Labor’s Penny Wong also wields “hate speech” a little too freely and loosely, describing it as “inimical to democracy”. It is one thing to call out genuine hate speech, using sunlight as a disinfectant. That is the essence of a liberal democracy. The antithesis of freedom is to endorse laws that can be used subjectively to stifle debate. …

Using a growing arsenal of tactics, in a few short decades SJWs have built an oppressive “cancel” culture that aims to silence and shame dissenters, and other refuseniks. While it should be heartening to see people such as former US president Barack Obama calling out cancel culture, it is about as convincing as the Australian Labor Party declaring it got too caught up confecting a class war at the last election. Where have you been? This is not rocket science. Is there conviction behind their new-found clarity?

Read it all. The harm done to society by these social-climbing clowns is immense, and the left are trying to ride this tiger to power and perks.

Criticism of trans policy brings its dangers

Criticism of trans policy brings its dangers, by Bernard Lane.

The must-have accessory for the feminist who speaks her own mind: a bodyguard. …

In Canada, famous for niceness, feminist Meghan Murphy is a woman whose words are weapons — or such is the cry from activists for trans­gender rights who see nothing odd about using threats of violence to try to silence her. …

But Murphy is the one exposed to risk of being hurt when she is smeared as “hateful” and has to run the gauntlet of mobs. “I’m certainly intimidated by these men (angry activists who self-identify as women) and that’s why I won’t do any events without bodyguards,’’ she says.

No Country for Old Men

No Country for Old Men, by Paul Collits.

People over sixty, perhaps even over fifty, can’t get jobs.

Many readers will have either been the victim of, or know someone who has been the victim of, age discrimination in the workplace. You can seldom prove it, of course, because this most insidious of the various, much more widely discussed forms of discrimination (mostly figments of the fevered imaginations of human rights bureaucrats), is normally very cleverly hidden, either in craftily penned job descriptions or through other means during the job selection process. …

Recent US research shows that more than half of older American workers are pushed out of long-term jobs before they want to retire. As an article describing the research says, “if you’re over fifty, chances are the decision to leave a job won’t be yours.” …

In a story this year, ProPublica described how IBM has forced out more than 20,000 U.S. workers aged 40 and over in just the past five years in order to, in the words of one internal company planning document, “correct seniority mix.” To accomplish this, the company used a combination of layoffs and forced retirements, as well as tactics such as mandatory relocations seemingly designed to push longtime workers to quit. …

The effect on self-esteem and mental health of losing your job in your fifties, not to mention the impact on the family bank balance, is severe, needless to say. And generally there is no going back. …

So the thought of the government taxing the family home after it has already messed endlessly with your super, and is now trying to make you work into your seventies, is pretty galling. That is, if you are lucky enough actually to get another job having retired or having been retired by some upstart in short pants. A job that will likely pay you far less than the one from which you were “transitioned out”, and probably employ you for far fewer hours. Oh, and you might have to go away, even hundreds of miles, and be separated from your loved ones, in order to snag that job. I had to move to another country, since my own was indeed no country for old men.

Read it all.

What the Media Don’t Want You to Know About Gordon Sondland’s “Bombshell” Testimony

What the Media Don’t Want You to Know About Gordon Sondland’s “Bombshell” Testimony, by John Nolte.

The fake news media are still trying to pretend Gordon Sondland’s train-wreck impeachment testimony Wednesday spells doom for President Trump.

Gordon Sondland, President Trump’s choice as U.S. ambassador to the European Union

It doesn’t. Quite the opposite. In fact, yesterday was a disaster for the media and Democrats, the worst day so far for an impeachment inquiry that is quickly exhausting the patience of the American people.

All the media got out of our ambassador to the European Union Wednesday was the soundbite they so desperately desired, a soundbite where a witness (who, like all the other impeachment “witnesses,” has witnessed nothing) said, “There was quid pro quo.”

Unfortunately for our media coup plotters, a soundbite is not evidence. But that won’t stop the lying media from playing that soundbite over and over and over again as though it is evidence.

No evidence, only Sondland’s presumption of a quid pro quo:

After using his swaggering opening statement to pretend he had the goods on Trump and the entire administration — which suckered the fake media into slobbering all over themselves with “game over” and “new John Dean” tweets — we learned that he has no evidence whatsoever and that his “bombshell” soundbite is based only on a — get this — “presumption.”

“Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigation,” asked a Republican questioner. “You really have no evidence.”

“Other than my own presumption,” Sondland admitted, as the air seemed to leak out of him.

And then came this bombshell…

“That was the problem,” Sondland confessed. “No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was.” …

Sondland omitted a phone call with Trump from his opening statement, but later under questioning we find:

President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on meetings,” Sondland admitted. “The aid was my own personal guess,” he added. …

Trump did tell Sondland one thing… Trump explicitly told Sondland he wanted “nothing” from Ukraine. “No quid pro quo.”

etc. etc.

The media simply lie by omission. Last night’s ABC News simply failed to mention that Sondland’s quid pro quo was only his “presumption,” or that Trump explicitly told Sondland in a telephone call there was no quid pro quo. The ABC just told us it was a bombshell, and thus Trump was guilty … of what exactly? Not specified.

I’m still waiting curiously to see if there is any substance to all this fuss. So far, it is just a big smear-a-thon.

As previously noted: In any case, any quid pro quo simply wasn’t effective. The Ukrainians got the aid, but they did not investigate the Bidens. Which rather implies that the suggestion of a quid pro quo either wasn’t made, or wasn’t understood, or was simply ignored with impunity.