China’s ‘Sneaky’ Navy Aims to Overpower South China Sea

China’s ‘Sneaky’ Navy Aims to Overpower South China Sea, by Kristina Wong.

China’s regular navy already has more ships than the U.S. — a little more than 300 to the U.S.’s 277. But Andrew Erickson, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College’s China Maritime Studies Institute, warns that it is China’s informal sea forces that need close watching.

At an event hosted by the Jamestown Foundation, Erickson described the three elements of China’s maritime forces: the navy, coast guard, and a maritime militia – or, as he said a friend’s five-year-old son acutely described it: “a regular navy, the police navy, and the sneaky navy.”

The “sneaky navy” refers to the maritime militia, which China passes off as civilian fishing boats but consists of thousands of vessels and personnel, who are fishermen by day but are organized and trained as a militia that can be called up as needed. …

Erickson said the maritime militia has a small elite subcomponent at the top, entrusted with participation in sea encounters and incidents with other nations.

Now, he said, China is developing an even more elite force, which consists of 84 vessels that are each nearly 200 feet long and up to 750 tons, have powerful water cannons, strong external rails useful for ramming other boats, and engage in exercises like loading light weapons.

“These folks don’t fish,” he said. …

“They are hiding in plain sight,” he said. “I hope people pay more attention to it.”

South China Sea

He said China’s coast guard is also the largest in the world, with 225 ships that are over 500 tons and another 1,050-plus ships confined to closer waters — a total of about 1,275 ships.

On how well this was working, Erickson responded, “They’re good enough to keep winning in the gray zone, which is where China wants to play.”

The gray zone refers to a space between peace and war where there is conflict below the threshold of conventional warfare — which complicates a U.S. response to that conflict.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Muslim public holidays in Germany? Interior minister’s proposal met with furious backlash

Muslim public holidays in Germany? Interior minister’s proposal met with furious backlash, by RT.

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere prompted a backlash from his own party and political allies by suggesting that Germany introduce Muslim public holidays. He was, however, backed by the leader of the Social Democrats, Martin Schulz. …

“Our Christian legacy is non-negotiable,” Alexander Dobrindt, the head of the CSU faction in the German federal parliament, said, commenting on de Maiziere’s statement.

“Introduction of Muslim public holidays in Germany is out of question,” he added.

His words were echoed by another CSU member, interior policy expert Stephan Mayer, who said that “Germany has for centuries carried the legacy of Christian traditions and was defined by it.”

“As of yet, nothing has changed in this field,” he said, adding that a statement that “Islam belongs to Germany” can be proved neither by the historical experience nor by the present situation.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Sydney Archbishop says religious believers could lose their jobs if gay marriage is legalised

Sydney Archbishop says religious believers could lose their jobs if gay marriage is legalised, by AAP.

“The state has no business telling us who we should love and how, sexually or otherwise,” he told the St Mary’s Cathedral congregation.

“The only kind of friendship the state has a proper interest in recognising and regulating is heterosexual marriage, because that’s what leads to children — new citizens — and gives them the best start in life.”

Archbishop Fisher said it was best for children to have a mother and a father, and that’s what marriage was about.

He said the vote had implications for religious freedom and it wasn’t unreasonable for people to say they couldn’t support a change to marriage laws until protections were in place.

“If overseas experience is anything to go by, if marriage is redefined it will be very hard to speak up for real marriage anymore — in schools, at work, socially,” he said.

“Traditional believers will be vulnerable to discrimination suits and other kinds of bullying for their beliefs. Some may lose their jobs, promotions, businesses, political careers.”

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Leftists and the Jews

Leftists and the Jews, by Rabbi Shalom Lewis.

The words I am about to share will be riddled with controversy. … I have never shied away from the truth, even if disturbing, even if risky, even if politically incorrect. Jeremiah many years ago lamented his prophetic appointment by crying out, “… “God’s word was like a raging fire in my heart, shut up in my bones. … I could not hold it in. I was helpless.” Jeremiah’s messages were blunt and harsh. He was beaten up by our ancestors and repeated attempts on his life were made but his words remain. Though no Jeremiah, I share his irrepressible passion for saying what needs to be said. I am also confident that you will be kinder to me then were the hostile and homicidal Jews of old to Jeremiah. …

The great threat that we face as Americans and as Jews comes not from the Alt Right but from the Alt Left.

Some are violent, rampaging criminals, others wear suits and ties, jeans and t-shirts. Some make no pretense of their disdain for America while others appear loyal citizens. Their tactics are different, but their goals are the same. They do not understand America nor American exceptionalism.

We are a dangerously polarized society and have tumbled into a place of binary values that define who and what we are. This cultural divide will also define where we go as a nation. As Americans and as Jews we must pick a side. And though it should be an easy choice it is confusing because the Left claims the moral high ground, wrapped in what they define as tolerance, equality, sensitivity and decency when in truth, their agenda is intolerant, unequal, insensitive and indecent.

“We are the champions of all that is good,” they cry out, when in fact they are on the wrong side of benevolence. They are the true bigots. The true oppressors. The true deniers of human rights. The true threat to authentic democracy.

Let me provide a simple test to help us figure out what to do when our hearts take us in the direction of what we believe is tikkun olam, when we are motivated to march. To raise our voices. To donate resources in the hope of creating an improved society. There is no better way to distinguish between what is moral and what is immoral. What is good and what is corrupt than in the Middle East impasse between Israel and the Palestinians. Though neither side is without blemish, the difference between the two is huge and provides us the definition of good and the definition of evil. …

Contrast the two. One is enlightened and civilized. The other is depraved and primitive. And yet, who is vilified by the Left and who is celebrated? Who is demonized by the Left and who is embraced? It is a cliché we have all heard, but it needs to be said here again. “If the Arabs/Palestinians put down their weapons today, there would be peace tomorrow. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no Israel tomorrow.” The Left likes the latter part of the quote and we who sing Hatikvah, eat felafel and go on Birthright, don’t get it. …

This past January many who are here today participated in The Woman’s March. A worldwide protest to advocate for women’s rights, worker’s rights, racial equality and assorted reforms. Nice stuff for sure. Sounds good, but the National Co-Chair of the Women’s March was a woman, Linda Sarsour, who claims that Zionists cannot be feminists, that there is no room in the movement for people who support the state of Israel, that there is nothing creepier than Zionism. Would Golda Meir walk alongside Sarsour? How about, Gal Gadot, Wonder Woman? Sarsour supports the BDS campaign against Israel. Boycott. Divest. Sanctions. But where is her BDS outrage against real injustice in China? Iran? Cuba? North Korea? Venezuela? ISIS? Saudi Arabia? Sudan? Yemen? Syria? Gaza? There, the feminist Left, to its disgrace, is silent. …

Keith Ellison, a Democratic congressman from Minnesota appeared a shoo-in to chair the DNC this past year, effectively making him the senior ranking Democrat in the country. He was narrowly defeated in a nail-biter, but was made deputy DNC chairman as a gesture of Democratic unity and goodwill. I have no problem with Ellison because he is Black. I have no problem with Ellison because he is a Muslim. I have no problem with Ellison because he is a Democrat. But I have a problem with Ellison, because when Hamas attacked Israel with Grad and Kassam rockets, Kaibar-1 and Fajr-5 rockets rained down on half the country, he voted against Iron Dome. He did not just vote against rearming Israel with a defensive weapon but effectively voted in favor of allowing thousands of Hamas rockets to annihilate and kill Jewish children in playgrounds.

It’s a long and powerful sermon. Is the left’s treatment of Jews like a canary in a coalmine?

hat-tip Scott of the Pacific

Reagan Was Mocked and Underestimated, Too

Reagan Was Mocked and Underestimated, Too, by Pat Buchanan.

What brings the moment back is Laura Ingraham’s new book: “Billionaire at the Barricades: The Populist Revolution from Reagan to Trump.” Thesis: Donald Trump is a conservative populist and direct descendant and rightful heir to Ronald Reagan.

To never-Trumpers this is pure blasphemy. Yet the similarities are there.

Both men were outsiders, and neither a career politician. Raised Democratic, Reagan had been a Hollywood actor, union leader and voice of GE, before running for governor of California.

Trump is out of Queens, a builder-businessman in a Democratic city whose Republican credentials were suspect at best when he rode down that elevator at Trump Tower. Both took on the Republican establishment of their day, and humiliated it. …

Among the signature issues of Trumpian populism is economic nationalism, a new trade policy designed to prosper Americans first.

Reagan preached free trade, but when Harley-Davidson was in danger of going under because of Japanese dumping of big bikes, he slammed a 50 percent tariff on Japanese motorcycles. Though a free trader by philosophy, Reagan was at heart an economic patriot.

He accepted an amnesty written by Congress for 3 million people in the country illegally, but Reagan also warned prophetically that a country that can’t control its borders isn’t really a country any more. …

Both also believed in cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget through rising revenues rather than cutting programs like Medicare and Social Security. …

And both were regarded in this capital city with a cosmopolitan condescension bordering on contempt. “An amiable dunce” said a Great Society Democrat of Reagan.

The awesome victories Reagan rolled up, a 44-state landslide in 1980 and a 49-state landslide in 1984, induced some second thoughts among Beltway elites about whether they truly spoke for America. Trump’s sweep of the primaries and startling triumph in the Electoral College caused the same consternation. …

The differences between Trump in his first year and Reagan in 1981 are stark. Reagan had won a landslide. The attempt on his life in April and the grace with which he conducted himself had earned him a place in the hearts of his countrymen. He not only showed spine in giving the air traffic controllers 48 hours to get back to work, and then discharging them when they defied him, he enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history with the aid of boll weevil Democrats in the House.

Coming up on one year since his election, Trump is besieged by a hostile press and united Democratic Party. This city hates him. While his executive actions are impressive, his legislative accomplishments are not. His approval ratings have lingered in the mid-30s. He has lost half a dozen senior members of his original White House staff, clashed openly with his own Cabinet and is at war with GOP leaders on the Hill.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Are We All Unconscious Racists? No: there’s scant evidence to support the trendy implicit-bias theory.

Are We All Unconscious Racists? No: there’s scant evidence to support the trendy implicit-bias theory. By Heather MacDonald.

Few academic ideas have been as eagerly absorbed into public discourse in recent years as “implicit bias.” Embraced by a president, a would-be president, and the nation’s top law-enforcement official, the implicit-bias conceit has launched a movement to remove the concept of individual agency from the law and spawned a multimillion-dollar consulting industry. The statistical basis on which it rests is now crumbling, but don’t expect its influence to wane anytime soon.

Implicit bias purports to answer the question: Why do racial disparities persist in household income, job status, and incarceration rates, when explicit racism has, by all measures, greatly diminished over the last half-century? The reason, according to implicit-bias researchers, lies deep in our brains, outside the reach of conscious thought. We may consciously embrace racial equality, but almost all of us harbor unconscious biases favoring whites over blacks, the proponents claim. And those unconscious biases, which the implicit-bias project purports to measure scientifically, drive the discriminatory behavior that, in turn, results in racial inequality.

The need to plumb the unconscious to explain ongoing racial gaps arises for one reason: it is taboo in universities and mainstream society to acknowledge intergroup differences in interests, abilities, cultural values, or family structure that might produce socioeconomic disparities. …

 

More PC fantasy.

The evidence for implicit bias rests on the assumption that all groups of people have the same statistical properties, at least when it comes to anything affecting achievement. This is so obviously unreal that it is hard to take seriously, but there is financial and political profit in it for some so here we are.

We are to believe that alleged millisecond associations between blacks and negative terms are a more powerful determinant of who gets admitted, hired, and promoted than these often explicit and heavy-handed preferences. If a competitively qualified black female PhD in computer engineering walks into Google, say, we are to believe that a recruiter will unconsciously find reasons not to hire her, so as to bring on an inferior white male. The scenario is preposterous on its face — in fact, such a candidate would be snapped up in an instant by every tech firm and academic department across the country. The same is true for competitively qualified black lawyers, accountants, and portfolio managers. …

The fact is that blacks on the academic market and in many other fields enjoy a huge hiring advantage. Yet they are still not proportionally represented in the workplace, despite decades of trying to engineer “diversity.” You can read through hundreds of implicit-bias studies and never come across the primary reason: the academic skills gap. Given the gap’s size, anything resembling proportional representation can be achieved only through massive hiring preferences.

From 1996 to 2015, the average difference between the mean black score on the math SAT and the mean white score was 0.92 standard deviation, reports a February 2017 Brookings Institution study. The average black score on the math SAT was 428 in 2015; the average white score was 534, and the average Asian score was 598. The racial gaps were particularly great at the tails of the distribution. Among top scorers—those scoring between 750 and 800—60 percent were Asian, 33 percent were white, and 2 percent were black. At the lowest end—scores between 300 and 350—6 percent were Asian, 21 percent were white, and 35 percent were black. If the SATs were redesigned to increase score variance—that is, to spread out the scores across a greater range by adding more hard questions and more easy questions—the racial gaps would widen. …

Proponents of racial preferences routinely claim that the SATs are culturally biased and do not measure actual cognitive skills. If that were the case, blacks would do better in college than their SAT scores would predict. In fact, blacks do worse. Further, the math test is not amenable to the “cultural-bias” criticism (unless one believes that math is itself biased). …

Street crime today is almost exclusively the province of “people of color.” In New York City, for example, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings in 2016; whites, who, at 34 percent of the population, are the city’s largest racial group, committed less than 2 percent of all shootings. Those figures come from the victims of, and witnesses to, those shootings. Blacks, who are 23 percent of the population, committed 71 percent of New York’s gun violence—meaning that blacks in New York are 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker. In Chicago, blacks and whites each make up a little less than a third of the city’s population: blacks commit 80 percent of all shootings; and whites, a little over 1 percent—making blacks in the Windy City 80 times more likely to commit a shooting than whites. …

Oh no. Those facts are not permitted in opinion forming in modern society. Leading to nonsense like this:

An officer from Chesterfield raised the most pressing concern in the Black Lives Matter era: depolicing. Seventy-five percent of the apprehended shoplifters in the Chesterfield mall were black, he said. (Chesterfield’s black population was 2.6 percent in 2010.) “We struggle with depolicing; it’s difficult to tell officers to enforce the shoplifting laws when they will be confronted with the implicit bias issue.” That is the dilemma facing officers today: if they enforce the law, they will generate the racially disproportionate stop-and-arrest statistics that fuel specious implicit-bias charges. But it is the reality of crime, not bias, which results in those disproportions.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Learn to navigate the elite’s new PC-speak – or else

Learn to navigate the elite’s new PC-speak – or else, by Claire Fox.

If 62 per cent of Britons … now say Britain ‘sometimes feels like a foreign country’, it’s not anti-foreigner prejudice so much as a feeling that people in authority are speaking at them in a foreign language. Not Polish or Punjabi but PC-speak, that opaque code that connotes whether you are ‘on message’ and one of ‘our kind of people’ or one of those racist lizard-brained Leaver oiks.

Look at the new language of diversity that is now being prescribed in much of the public sector. The British Medical Association recently sent all its employees a 12-page booklet, ‘A Guide to Effective Communication: Inclusive Language in the Workplace’. This tells staff how to change their language to suit ‘an increasingly diverse society’, for example replacing ‘manpower’ with ‘staff, workforce, personnel, workers’. Ludicrously, pregnant women should no longer be called ‘expectant mothers’ but ‘pregnant people’.

The Times reported in April that UK universities are forcing students to conform to new codes restricting the use of gendered language. The University of Hull warns students that ‘failure to use gender-sensitive language will impact your mark’; common terms such as ‘mankind’, ‘forefathers’ and ‘manpower’ should be replaced by ‘humankind’, ‘ancestors’ and ‘human resources’.

Another layer of complexity is the demand for non-binary, gender-neutral pronouns and honorifics like ‘they’, ‘xe’, ‘ze’ and ‘Mx’. I was recently sent a code of conduct warning me of the cost of misgendering: ‘It is very important to note that any attempts to undermine pronoun introductions will not be tolerated’. … I immediately became tongue-tied. Can you imagine then what it feels like to the uninitiated? The problem for most people is that they are not ‘educated’ in these linguistic niceties. I don’t mean educated as in qualifications. I mean trained in the cultural literacy now required to survive modern Britain without failing the language test and being castigated as transphobic or xxxphobic or whatever for using the wrong words. …

University life initiates almost half of tomorrow’s opinion formers into the rhetoric of identity and inclusivity, into the rules about which combination of words can get you into trouble, into the parameters of what is considered offensive. It is this ever-growing army of graduates, well versed in the acceptable discourse, who now populate local government. They are often members of a new professional class of expert, trained to detect offensive speech and re-educate the public mind, and all the while making their way to commanding positions in public sector organisations.

Look at how the Equalities Act 2010 has been used to wage a full-scale culture war … One fashionable target … is to disparage banter, so ‘mate speech’ is demonised as ‘hate speech’. For example, the Local Government Association’s report … declares the need to ‘change the culture of the service… historically dominated by white males’ by targeting workplace ‘banter’. The Oxford English Dictionary defines banter as ‘the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks’. More colloquially, it is understood to be the informal, jokey letting off steam, so important for camaraderie. But for the LGA, this unregulated speech is depicted misanthropically as an expression of ‘thinly disguised’ sexism, dangerous ‘macho culture’, bigoted small talk that needs to be stamped out.

Such assaults on people’s free speech among friends are justified in the name of tackling bigotry. In fact, they reveal the bigotry of the ‘educated’ diversity enforcers, who remain unaware that their target culprits are not the ignorant, prejudiced Neanderthals they assume them to be, but just people who do not spout the correct jargon or share their ‘I Find That Offensive!’ thin-skinned mentality.

PC big government. I think this is what George Orwell was trying to warn us about.

Hillary Clinton says Julian Assange colluded with Russia to help Donald Trump win US election

Hillary Clinton says Julian Assange colluded with Russia to help Donald Trump win US election, by Sarah Ferguson.

Julian Assange has launched a personal attack on Hillary Clinton, accusing her of lying and displaying a “cold creepiness” after the former US presidential candidate told the ABC the WikiLeaks founder is a “tool of Russian intelligence”.

In an exclusive interview with Four Corners, Mrs Clinton alleged Mr Assange colluded with a Russian intelligence operation to disrupt the 2016 US election and damage her candidacy for president.

“Assange has become a kind of nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator,” she said.

“WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian intelligence.”

The Wikileaks founder, who has been living inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012, hit back this morning, tweeting that Mrs Clinton was “not a credible person”.

Tweeting a link to the Four Corners interview, Mr Assange said there was “something wrong” with her.

“It is not just her constant lying. It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement,” he said. “Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen.” …

Mrs Clinton said that WikiLeaks’ actions were motivated by Julian Assange’s personal dislike of her.

“I had a lot of history with him because I was secretary of state when WikiLeaks published a lot of very sensitive information from our State Department and our Defence Department,” she said.

Delusional stuff from Hillary Clinton. Wikileaks publishes leaked documents that the authorities would rather the public didn’t know about, so I suppose corrupt authorities would hate Wikileaks.

Australian church graffiti attack targets ‘No’ voters

Australian church graffiti attack targets ‘No’ voters, by Emily Ritchie.

A Melbourne church has been vandalised with the words “Crucify No voters” and “Vote Yes”, startling Sunday morning churchgoers as the marriage postal vote process enters its sixth week.

The slogans were painted in white along the external walls of Waverley Baptist church in Wheelers Hill, referencing the highly divisive marriage debate. …

The incident came as Sydney Catholic Archbishop Anthony Fisher for the first time directly addressed his congregation on the same-sex marriage plebiscite, arguing that governments should typically “stay out of the bedroom”. …

“The only kind of friendship the state has a proper interest in recognising and regulating is heterosexual marriage, because that’s what leads to children — new citizens — and gives them the best start in life.”

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Austria election: Young conservative Sebastian Kurz claims victory as voters shift to right

Austria election: Young conservative Sebastian Kurz claims victory as voters shift to right, by the ABC.

Young conservative star Sebastian Kurz has declared victory as Austria’s next leader, but his party fell short of a majority in Sunday’s election and will likely seek a coalition with the resurgent far right.

By taking a hard line on immigration that left little difference between him and the far-right Freedom Party (FPO), the 31-year-old Foreign Minister managed to propel his People’s Party to first place and draw some support away from an FPO buoyed by Europe’s migration crisis.

Austria elections, by Jacquelin Magnay.

An anti-immigration and anti European Union surge has underpinned a likely right wing coalition government in Austria headed by the world’s youngest leader, the 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz.

Early results from Sunday’s election show that Kurz’s conservative People’s Party (ÖVP), was on track to win the election with 31.7 per cent support with the Social Democrats on 26.9 per cent and the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) with 26 per cent.

The Freedom Party, which saw a five per cent up swing in support campaigned on cutting migration, and will be the king maker in forming a ruling coalition between the Peoples Party and the Social Democrats.

The likely combination of the Peoples Party and Freedom Party would be a severe blow to the EU leaders with Austria set to become a niggling voice in Brussels just as the EU seeks to take a firm stance in negotiations with Brexit. …

Central to his appeal was a vow to shut down the migrant route into Austria and limit social benefit payments to migrants until they have lived in the country for five years.

Well done, Mrs Merkel.

Philip Barton comments:

No one in the media accused Kurz of being ‘far right’. I find that interesting because it strongly implies that the mood has shifted.

Strache and Kurz together polled 58% and they both ran on anti-immigration. Kurz seems sincere; I don’t think that it was just a clever sizing up of the zeitgeist (having lived there, I follow the Austrian news).

Along with Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and a few others, the madness is about to end. No welfare for five years is an announced policy of Kurz. Others will pick it up. If Germany, France and Belgium don’t also toe the line, they will be flooded with migrants fleeing the ‘no welfare’ parts of the Euro zone. It seems plausible that they too will declare ‘no welfare for five years’.

No welfare will mean the immediate departure of all the new migrants. Without welfare, I believe that they will leave Europe. I hope that is so, but there may be an element of wishful thinking there 🙂

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Senior Google Management ‘On The Verge Of Tears’ After Trump Win

Senior Google Management ‘On The Verge Of Tears’ After Trump Win, by Allum Bokhari.

Following the firing of viewpoint diversity advocate James Damore, … Breitbart News’ interview series, Rebels of Google, has revealed an atmosphere of profound fear at the company, in which employees who challenge Google’s hyper-progressive narratives face bullying and ostracization from co-workers, and frequently find themselves added to blacklists aimed at destroying peoples’ careers both inside and outside Google. …

In our latest interview, current Google employee (alias “Gordon”) … describes senior managers at Google being on the “verge of tears” following Trump’s election win, “cult-like” diversity training sessions, and an autistic employee who was fired after questioning the idea of gender as a spectrum.

Competitive political virtue signalling among management:

Every week, Google holds an end-of-week meeting with all its Mountain View employees called a “TGIF meeting” (Thank God It’s Friday). According to Gordon, the TGIF that followed Trump’s election victory was something to behold.

“After the 2016 election, we had an entire TGIF dedicated to the election result, in which several of our top management gave emotional speeches as though the world was going to end, and seemed to be on the verge of tears.” says Gordon “It was embarrassing.”

Identity politics came to Google in 2015, after which only white males could be criticized:

According to Gordon, things took a turn for the worse when the Black Lives Matter ideology started to spread through the corporate culture.

“One thing that’s unusual about Google is that it is fine to harshly and even unprofessionally criticize managers and other teams. Before we became politicized, this seemed liberating. Then, when Black Lives Matter hysteria hit its peak, sometime in 2015, it became taboo to criticize identity politics, and later on, it became very dangerous to criticize any member of a minority group at all (even if the criticism had nothing to do with their identity).

“The worst part isn’t the ‘diversity.’” says Gordon “It’s the “inclusion” – the banner under which they justify dangerous pseudosciences like unconscious bias and microaggressions, and try to make them company policy.”

Ideological conformity at Google, says Gordon, is “far worse” than James Damore’s viewpoint diversity memo indicates.

Google is run like a religious cult. Conform and carry out the rituals, and you’ll be rewarded and praised; ask any uncomfortable questions or offend the wrong people, and the threats and public shaming will be swift and ruthless. The religion in this case is a kind of intersectional feminism, its central tenets are Diversity and Inclusion, its demonic enemy is Bias, and its purifying rituals include humiliating forms of “training” that resemble Maoist struggle sessions.”

“This might sound crazy to a lot of your readers, but college students should understand, since it’s a similar culture.”

According to Gordon, efforts to terrorize employees over identity politics come from both managers and rank-and-file Googlers.

“The agitation ranges from very subtle (“it’s not OK,” “we cannot stand for this,” “these are shitty opinions”) to quite overt (“this is violently offensive,” “I will not tolerate,” “I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you”).”

“I’ve seen around 20-30 managers agitating this way, each of whom is in charge of anywhere from a few dozen to over a thousand employees. There are some very high-level people who consider the progressive agenda to be more important than the success and mental health of their teams.” …

The antidote is truth:

Gordon says there’s only one way to fight back.

“Tell the truth, even when the truth hurts. Especially when the truth hurts. Tell it to everyone who will listen and make sure they pass it on.”

Not that the postmodern PC crew agree that truth even exists. I guess if you are promoting politically-inspired fantasies it probably helps to discredit the notion of truth.

The Antidote to Steve Bannon: Lindsey Graham has good advice for Senate Republicans

The Antidote to Steve Bannon: Lindsey Graham has good advice for Senate Republicans. A Wall Street Journal Editorial.

One irony of Washington these days is that a press corps that claims to loathe right-wing political operative Steve Bannon can’t get enough of him. The media broadcast his every utterance, cheering on his declaration of “civil war” against Republicans in Congress. …

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (S.C.) [recently gave] Republicans good advice on how to defeat Mr. Bannon, his Mercer family financiers and Breitbart campaign operation. …

“If we don’t cut taxes and we don’t eventually repeal and replace ObamaCare, then we’re going to lose across the board in the House in 2018. And all of my colleagues running in primaries in 2018 will probably get beat. It will be the end of [Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell as we know it.” …

“Our problem is that we promised to repeal and replace ObamaCare, and we failed. We promised to cut taxes, and we’ve yet to do it. If we’re successful, Mitch McConnell is fine. If we’re not, we’re all in trouble, we lose our majority, and I think President Trump will not get re-elected.”

If the establishment Republicans were not breaking their promises, Bannon’s effort to replace them would not be gathering such momentum.

Dumping Turnbull won’t fix the problem he created

Dumping Turnbull won’t fix the problem he created, by Peta Credlin.

Right now, the only conversation anyone is having in Canberra centres on the prime minister’s future: can he survive? If not him, who?…

Right now, things are very fluid. The prime minister remains in his job only because key senior conservatives have not shifted support. How long that continues is anyone’s guess but conversations are being had. …

Newspoll is stagnant because the base now has somewhere to go, and they’re going. …

Backbenchers have stopped campaigning because they don’t know how to defend the government’s poor standing, and there’s no real plan to fight back.

Ironically it’s the moderates Malcolm Turnbull needs to watch. They’ve been meeting recently and “what has he done for us lately” is a common refrain, with many feeling Julie Bishop has delivered more than Turnbull.

The Week in Pictures: Hurricane Harvey Edition

The Week in Pictures: Hurricane Harvey Edition, by Steven Hayward.

So I guess it is time to move on from the Harvey Weinstein story, because I’m getting tired. . . Hell no I’m not! This is the most fun since election night. It’s the most schadenfreudiest schadenfreude moment since Freud first coughed up his schaden when his shower knob failed. I expect the next shoe to drop will be the revelation that Weinstein didn’t buy carbon offsets! That will complete his Hollywood exile. Meanwhile, I score Trump as 4 – 0 this week, having pushed tax reform, humbling the NFL, moving against Obamacare, and setting up the nixing of the Iran treaty. So much winning I can hardly keep up.

Many more cartons and images at the link.

The Democrats Are Shocked!

The Democrats Are Shocked! By John Hinderaker.

The Weinstein scandal is entertaining mostly because he was one of the main pillars of the Democratic Party, and it turns out that he had a decades-long career as a sex criminal. As pretty much everyone already knew, apparently.

Just like Bill Clinton, and quite a few other Democrats, such as — most notoriously — Ted Kennedy. But we want to be scrupulously fair, so we should emphasize that Weinstein neither killed anyone, as far as we know, nor rode on the Lolita Express, as far as has been reported. So let’s not malign Weinstein by a false equivalence with Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton. …

There are quite a few liberal actresses in Hollywood for whom Jabba is acceptable if the price is right; or, at least, someone who needs to be protected for the sake of one’s career. They are, of course, our moral superiors on Twitter. Especially now that they have spoken up, years after the fact and when there is nothing to lose.

Trump supporters shout down liberal speakers

Trump supporters shout down liberal speakers, by Paul Mirengoff.

Stanley Kurtz provides what he calls a “man bites dog” story: the shout-down of California Attorney General, Xavier Becerra and California State Assembly Leader Ian Calderon — both liberals – by Pro-Trump, MAGA hat-wearing protesters. This occurred at Whittier College, alma mater of Richard Nixon, where Becerra was trying to explain his decision to sue the Trump administration for phasing out the DACA program.

The disruptors, who apparently were not students, shouted slogans like: “Build that wall,” “lock him up,” “respect our president,” and “American first.” Becerra’s question and answer session with Calderon was severely disturbed and cut short as a result.

Shout-downs of liberals and leftists by those on the right are just as intolerable as the more standard case in which lefty students shout down conservative speakers. They show that in a deeply divided country, curbing free speech for some could easily mean curbing free speech for all.

On the other hand, until the left are caused pain — by having their speakers shouted down and no-platformed — the left will keep on doing it to the right. Sometimes, to stop being punched, you have to punch back.

The more certain you are, the more you should resist the temptation to silence those who disagree

The more certain you are, the more you should resist the temptation to silence those who disagree. By Richard Dooling.

If you are absolutely certain that President Trump is or is not an idiot, that climate change is or is not the most pressing problem of our age, that abortion is or is not murder, that football players should or should not be allowed to kneel during the national anthem, that our nation needs more or fewer gun laws, welcome! Most of us feel the same way. Absolute certainty is common, as is the suspicion that anybody who is absolutely certain of the opposite view must be evil, ignorant or a gullible consumer of fake news.

Along with absolute certainty comes the understandable impulse to regulate or ban the speech of your opponent. Why allow evil and ignorant people to infect others with falsehoods and dangerous ideas? Why not take away the licenses of broadcasters whose news departments have the wrong slant? Why not make hate speech illegal? …

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. realized in 1919 in a famous US court case:

The problem … is that we are almost always absolutely certain of our premises, but sometimes we are wrong. …

Holmes’s radical idea was that we are too often wrong. When we are wrong, the consequences can be dire. When we are not only absolutely certain but also right, what is the harm in allowing other views to be heard? The truth needs no protectors and will eventually win out …

Example:

Consider the contemporary example of gay rights. The American Psychiatric Association publishes a reference guide, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, currently in its fifth edition. Originally published in 1952, the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental disorder of one kind or another until 1987. These days, some psychiatrists are pushing to have “homophobia” listed as a mental illness.

They were either correct in the 1950s, correct now, or incorrect both times. Their certainty was definitely misplaced at least once.