As the posters in my illustrated edition show, when it comes to New York Times antisemitism, it’s 1933 all over again (plus many other interesting posters).
As the posters in my illustrated edition show, when it comes to New York Times antisemitism, it’s 1933 all over again (plus many other interesting posters).
Enjoy the lack of self-awareness found in the most popular Progressive comments to a Times op-ed warning against the dangers of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
One of the joys in life during the Trump era is watching Progressives decompensate and self-destruct. All their rhetoric about inclusiveness, spiritual generosity, intellectual superiority has always been merely a thin veneer covering vicious insanity. Trump, bless his heart, stripped that veneer and now we’re getting Progressives, like Nature itself, “red in tooth and claw With ravine.” Nowhere is this slavering fury better displayed than in the comments to a Sunday New York Times op-ed telling them that they’re harming themselves with the unbridled Trump Derangement Syndrome.
In the op-ed, Gerard Alexander, a PolySci professor at University of Virginia, has some hard truths for Progressives. He describes their behavior and predicts an inevitable backfire:
I know many liberals, and two of them really are my best friends. Liberals make good movies and television shows. Their idealism has been an inspiration for me and many others. Many liberals are very smart. But they are not as smart, or as persuasive, as they think.
And a backlash against liberals — a backlash that most liberals don’t seem to realize they’re causing — is going to get President Trump re-elected.
Liberals dominate the entertainment industry, many of the most influential news sources and America’s universities. This means that people with progressive leanings are everywhere in the public eye — and are also on the college campuses attended by many people’s children or grandkids. These platforms come with a lot of power to express values, confer credibility and celebrity and start national conversations that others really can’t ignore.
But this makes liberals feel more powerful than they are. Or, more accurately, this kind of power is double-edged. Liberals often don’t realize how provocative or inflammatory they can be. In exercising their power, they regularly not only persuade and attract but also annoy and repel.
Racist is pretty much the most damning label that can be slapped on anyone in America today, which means it should be applied firmly and carefully. Yet some people have cavalierly leveled the charge against huge numbers of Americans — specifically, the more than 60 million people who voted for Mr. Trump.
Within just a few years, many liberals went from starting to talk about microaggressions to suggesting that it is racist even to question whether microaggressions are that important. “Gender identity disorder” was considered a form of mental illness until recently, but today anyone hesitant about transgender women using the ladies’ room is labeled a bigot. Liberals denounce “cultural appropriation” without, in many cases, doing the work of persuading people that there is anything wrong with, say, a teenager not of Chinese descent wearing a Chinese-style dress to prom or eating at a burrito cart run by two non-Latino women.
This judgmental tendency became stronger during the administration of President Barack Obama, though not necessarily because of anything Mr. Obama did. Feeling increasingly emboldened, liberals were more convinced than ever that conservatives were their intellectual and even moral inferiors. Discourses and theories once confined to academia were transmitted into workaday liberal political thinking, and college campuses — which many take to be what a world run by liberals would look like — seemed increasingly intolerant of free inquiry.
Self-righteousness can also get things wrong. Especially with the possibility of Mr. Trump’s re-election, many liberals seem primed to write off nearly half the country as irredeemable. Admittedly, the president doesn’t make it easy. As a candidate, Mr. Trump made derogatory comments about Mexicans, and as president described some African countries with a vulgar epithet. But it is an unjustified leap to conclude that anyone who supports him in any way is racist, just as it would be a leap to say that anyone who supported Hillary Clinton was racist because she once made veiled references to “superpredators.”
Liberals are trapped in a self-reinforcing cycle. When they use their positions in American culture to lecture, judge and disdain, they push more people into an opposing coalition that liberals are increasingly prone to think of as deplorable. That only validates their own worst prejudices about the other America.
It’s a well-stated thesis: You’re incredibly nasty about half the American population, nastiness is seldom persuasive, and you may find yourself facing a backlash you hate, in the form of four more years of Trump (not to mention a stalled blue wave in the 2018 midterms). I recommend reading the article because it makes a lot of sense, but the real joy comes from reading the comments.
I should note that I did not read the more than 1,700 comments. Instead, I scrolled through those comments that New York Times readers (i.e., Progressives) deemed the most best. What’s so funny is that Alexander’s message — don’t be so nasty because you harm your own cause — bypassed both writers and readers completely. In the most popular comment of them all, the author simply cannot understand how Hillary’s popularity didn’t soar after she rightly called half of Americans “deplorable”: [Read more…]
I refuse to listen to the hypocritical New York Times when it suddenly discovers the rule of law and starts to care about a president’s associates.
A Progressive friend was tremendously excited about an editorial in the New York Times. In it, the editorial board exulted about the fact that the president is exposed for all to see: an unsavory con man with no respect for the rule of law. I think it’s worth quoting a part of it:
Mr. Obama has spent his career in the company of developers and celebrities, and also of grifters, cons, sharks, goons and crooks. He cuts corners, he lies, he cheats, he brags about it, and for the most part, he’s gotten away with it, protected by threats of litigation, hush money and his own bravado. Those methods may be proving to have their limits when they are applied from the Oval Office. Though Democrat leaders in Congress still keep a cowardly silence. . . .
Yeah, you caught me — I switched out president names (Obama for Trump) and political parties (Democrats for Republicans). In fact, the New York Times is in full-throated condemnation about Trump’s disdain for the rule of law, the unsavory characters with which he surrounds himself, his open disrespect for the media and law enforcement, and his shenanigans to achieve and retain power.
Much to my Progressive friend’s dismay, I was not impressed, stating only that the New York Times lacked any standing to voice these concerns because it had been completely silent about Obama’s disdain for the rule of law, the unsavory characters with which he surrounded himself, or his shenanigans to achieve and retain power. The Progressive did not want to hear details, instead castigating me for living in a bubble and having no respect for the rule of law.
Had I not been shut down, I would have said this: First, I knew exactly what kind of person I was getting with Donald Trump. I knew he was sleazy, I knew he was unfaithful to his wives, I knew that he had sleazy friends (witness his friendship with the Clintons), and I knew that he was willing to push his way around the law if he could. I also knew that he loved his country, that he has a deserved reputation for getting things done, and that he was not Hillary, the ultimate grifter, sleaze, and law-breaker. Since he’s been president, I’ve cut all ties with caring about his sometimes less-than-savory past. He’s done nothing but good for American interests at home and abroad, and he’s done so within both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. [Read more…]
A few photos show that, while the Left preaches racial and gender diversity, it’s actually conservatives who truly embrace it –and for the best reasons.
The Left loves to hector conservatives for being white — white privilege, white supremacy, white hegemony, toxic whiteness, etc. They also like to claim that all this white thought comes from (ick) men — toxic masculinity, dead white men, white men who ought to be dead, etc.
The fact that the Left is operating from a place of terrible hypocrisy is irrelevant to the Leftists. What’s important is that they can keep blacks voting Democrat by contending that Leftists are the party of diversity, while conservatives are not. The same holds true for their insistence that conservatives have no room for women, so all correct thinking women should vote Democrat.
It’s certainly true that, on the street or at the DNC, there are a lot of black and female faces. Here’s an SEIU protest in New Orleans, for example:
And here’s a crowd shot at the 2016 DNC convention, although it does trend male, I think:
Leftists also have a few talking heads of color — Don Lemon, Van Jones, Joy Reid, etc.
What’s fascinating, though, is that the “thought leaders” at outlets such as Huffington Post, the New York Times, and the Washington Post are all remarkably . . . er, pale: [Read more…]
Is David Hogg, the post-Florida shooting media darling, the real deal or a Leftist plant? The New York Times provides no facts to help answer that question.
It was inevitable that, after the school shooting in Florida, Progressives would demand that Americans surrender their Second Amendment rights. Their campaign this time has a new twist. Rather than merely using frightened and grieving parents, Progressives in the media decided to turn the political attack into something John Hinderaker has aptly called a “children’s crusade.” This children’s crusade has included endless visuals of hysterical teenagers at the Florida Statehouse — which, to its credit, resisted the hysteria and refused to enter into gun grabbing mode. The students have also been engaging in interviews with drive-by media outlets and, with help from the hard-Left, antisemitic, anti-white Women’s March crew, organizing mass marches and school walkouts.
The Progressives, both the professionals in media and politics, and the useful idiots who routinely hew Left in social media, have bestowed upon these students the same “absolute moral authority” they granted grieving Mom and anti-war fanatic Cindy Sheehan — that is, they gave her that authority right until Obama was in the White House, at which time she ceased to be useful to them. They seem blind to the irony that they are imputing wisdom to the same people they claim are so helpless they must remain on their parents’ healthcare until they are 26. They are telling us we have to let the same people who eat Tide Pods dictate America’s constitutional policy. Of course, these are also the same people who insist that girls as young as 12 get the Pill and abortions without parental consent, but that tanning and ear-piercing must have a parent’s signature. We don’t look for logic with the Left.
Given the way the Left weaponized teenagers after the Florida shooting, it’s scarcely surprising to see that pro-Second Amendment Americans are striking back by taking a long, hard look at these same teenagers. The conservative side of my Facebook feed is a phenomenal resource for this push-back. One of the major forms of push-back bubbling up questions the bona fides of these students, especially the most prominent among them, a kid named David Hogg.
Please note that I do not vouch for the veracity of any of the material below. It could be true. It could be Photoshopped and I’d have no way of knowing. It could be pure tin foil conspiracy stuff. It could have a grain of truth wrapped in gauzy fantasy. I have no idea. I just want you to see what’s out there so that you will understand how dismally incompetent the New York Times was when it decided to challenge the theories set out below. [Read more…]
A trip through a few days worth of my Facebook posts shows that, with little effort, I can expose Proggies to ideas and facts they usually miss or ignore.
Of late, between paying work, family demands, and a touch of the blecchies (not the flu, thank goodness, but I wasn’t feeling great), I’ve been posting on my real-me Facebook more than I’ve been blogging. Blogging requires paragraphs; Facebook requires sentences, a word here or there, or no comment at all to introduce an article.
My two goals on Facebook are to entertain people, so they keep coming back to my feed, and to place before them things that they won’t normally see as they shuffle back and forth between The New York Times, The Washington Post, Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, and the usual mono-ideologues who make up their intellectual world. I try to do the latter in an entirely non-judgmental way, so that people will stop and think, rather than block and argue.
To give you a sense of my M.O., here’s a sampling of things from my real-me Facebook feed over the last few days, many of which you’ll probably recognize from Instapundit and other familiar sites:
I knew that Cape Town’s imminent water shortage was its own fault because it failed to plan for drought, despite living where they regularly occur and despite a population much larger than the last time a drought rolled around. That was the same problem California had with its recent drought (and may continue to have, because last year’s big rains, rather than heralding the end of drought seem to have been just a pause). What I didn’t know was that it was South Africa’s poisonous antipathy to Israel that prevented it from saving itself. Now, when I see Cape Towners lined up with little cans at communal fountains, I don’t feel sorry for them, just as I really didn’t feel sorry for Californians (myself included) stupid enough to live in a state that failed to prepare for inevitable dry periods.
Everybody loves MacDonald’s — even Lefties. That’s why, back in 1990, when the first MacDonald’s opened in the former Soviet Union, 30,000 Russians lined up for the chance to eat there:
Emotional support pets on planes are too often a scam. I adore my dog, who makes me happy, and I’d definitely be a less panicked airplane passenger if I held him in my arms, but he’s still not medically necessary, and most other so-called emotional support pets aren’t either. The way people have abused the service pet exception to animals on planes is especially bad because it’s making things so difficult for those people who genuinely need an animal at their side to help them navigate their world or to guard them against dangerous seizures and other serious ailments. And so I said on Facebook.
Sharyl Attkisson, one of the last honest reporters, explained that the Nunes memo indicates that the FBI violated Woods Procedures. So that my friends don’t have to exhaust themselves clicking over to the article, I explain that this means that the FBI isn’t attesting to its own probity, or even the probity of the person who assembled a dossier. It needs to make a colorable showing that the person who first voiced the information — the anonymous source — is credible. I added that I was interested in learning more about those sources. Since then, of course, we’ve had intimations that the sources are Sidney Blumenthal and friends, people so devious and untrustworthy that only the Clintons could bear their presence. I haven’t mentioned those last facts to my Proggie friends. [Read more…]
The “destroy Trump” media’s latest revelations re Trump and Comey and the mostly-ignored Rich-Wikileaks’ nexus cast a harsh light on Comey and the FBI.
Revelations of the last 24 hours are coming ‘fast and furious’ one might say. Something is playing out between Trump, Comey and the NYT that could potentially involve illegal actions by President Trump or former FBI Director Comey. They most certainly involve a complete failure in journalistic ethics by the NYT.
Also in the news today, there is reason to suspect that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich may have been the source of Wikileaks’ revelations during the 2016 Presidential election. The circumstances of his death, in light of some of the oddities of the FBI investigation into “Russian meddling” are sufficient to give any fair person pause that Rich’s murder might not have been a “failed robbery.”
The curious case of Comey, Trump and the NYT
The NYT ran a blockbuster story today, “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him To End The Flynn Investigation.” In it, the author claims that Comey recorded in a memo that Trump said:
“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. . . . He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”
The NYT claims that the President’s statement amounted to an order to shut down the investigation. I think that arguable (Ann Althouse’s analysis concurs, and see Prof. Turley on Morning Joe), but regardless, the NYT was on a roll:
The documentation of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.
That is an incredibly serious allegation of the type for which the progs have been making daily virgin sacrifices since November. It is also an allegation that the NYT has made without any verification, as the reporter who wrote the article admits that he has never seen the Comey memo, nor does it appear that he made any attempt to verify the document with Comey. I don’t think I have ever heard of a paper running such a story. Just for sheer violation of traditional standards of journalism, this makes Rolling Stone look like a paragon of virtue. The NYT had better hope that this is an accurate report or this could be the beginning of their end.
According to the NYT, Comey regularly documented his conversations and meetings with Donald Trump, including a memo about a private meeting that occurred on Feb. 14, the day after Trump fired Michael Flynn from his government post. The NYT claims that Comey “shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates.” That leads to the first question, with whom exactly did Comey share the alleged memos?
If you haven’t yet heard, Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” in Roe v. Wade, died today. She came to fame as a rape victim who, claimed abortion proponents, should have been allowed an abortion. After the Supreme Court decision, McCorvey became an abortion rights activist.
McCorvey also made her life story public and a terrible life it was, one of poverty, abuse (including being raped as a child), broken marriages, sexual confusion, drugs, and alcohol. Faith finally saved her and, with that faith, she came to realize that human life has value.
Norma McCorvey spent the last two decades of her life campaigning for the pro-Life movement. That is, with age, wisdom, peace, and chemical detox, she abandoned the belief system she’d developed during a twisted, impoverished, chemically-altered, depressed, deeply abused youth.
The above is a very short precis of a complicated and consequential life. I may be wrong, but I think the trajectory that took her to the place at which she ended is just as important as the point from which she started. The New York Times does not agree with me.
If you’re wondering why I turned to the Times obituary for Norma McCorvey, I did it both because the Times often does obituaries very well and because I was curious about how the Times would cover McCorvey’s inconvenient ideological conversion. Perhaps if Margalit Fox had written the obituary, it might have been different, because she’s a genuine talent. The assignment, however, ended in a lesser writer’s hands.
The obituary is 41 paragraphs long, so you can assume that most readers will give up about 10 to 20 paragraphs in. Keep that in mind as you read the following, which briefly summarizes each paragraph’s contents. Also, to give you a visual sense about the Times’ heroic effort to downplay the fact that Norma McCorvey eventually found emotional peace in the pro-Life movement, I’ll highlight in red all of the references to the last twenty years of her life’s work. I’ve also included my own commentaries in square brackets.
Para. 1 — Identifies who Norma McCorvey was — a central figure in the divisive abortion debate — and announces her death at 69.
Para. 2 — Cause and location of death.
Para. 3 — 50 million legal abortions performed since 1973, although “although later court decisions and new state and federal laws have imposed restrictions.” [Bookworm here: This sentence implies that the pro-Life movement has significantly moved the dial at a judicial and legislative level. The reality is that Roe v. Wade itself imposed significant restrictions on abortion relating to the development of the fetus: in the first trimester, the woman controls completely; in the second, there’s a balancing act; and in the third, the state has the greatest interest. Later decisions did away with that. No statute has successfully returned abortion to the original Roe v. Wade limitations.] In the same paragraph, the author states “abortions have declined with the wide use of contraceptives.
Para. 4 — McCovey an almost mythological figure who never wanted the spotlight. “[p]ulled by the forces of politics to one side of the abortion conflict, then by religion to the other.” [Bookworm here: This is the first mention of the last 20 years of her life and it is so opaque only the knowing reader would understand that McCorvey spent the last 20 years of her life as a principled pro-Life activist.]
My dear friend Lulu, who is an astute social and political observer, has some comments about everyone’s nightmare college roommate and the roommate’s disgraceful enabler, the New York Times.
Romaissaa Benzizoune is the worst roommate in America. She deserves to be publicly called out for it. As does her callous enabler, the New York Times.
I suppose we’ve all had some better and worse roommate situations in our lives. I once shared a house with someone who, in retrospect, must have had a form of OCD. She couldn’t put things away in her room. Her piles of possessions drove her out of her own cluttered bedroom and to the shared living room sofa, which became her de facto bedroom. While that was a pretty difficult situation, she had no meanness to her. We were annoyed, yes, but also had compassion for her.
I know a young man whose roommate his freshman year was the dorm drug dealer. My niece’s freshman roommate had severe mental health issues that were both frightening and dangerous. It’s a crapshoot. Two or three total strangers are thrown together into a dorm by chance and sometimes they’re lucky and enjoy a great situation with thoughtful, considerate, stable people who become friends, or at least develop a healthy dynamic. This is the situation my daughter, thankfully, enjoys now with her roommates in her freshman dorm.
Some people have less luck. Take K.N. Pineda. She was unlucky enough in her freshman year at college to Romaissaa assigned as her roommate at New York University because, as I mentioned, Romaissaa is the worst roommate in America.
Imagine, if you will, an 18-year-old Pineda adjusting not only to college life but also to living in NYC while attending NYU. The roommates have different backgrounds, not surprising in a cosmopolitan school like NYU, but chat, braid each other’s hair and have a cordial relationship. Then one day, Pineda, in a conversation, reveals something about herself that is so shocking and horrible that Romaissaa’s only recourse is to flee her home and write an editorial in the NYT about her deep psychic wound upon discovering that her roommate is a disgusting idiot who believes horrible things and about how deeply, deeply traumatizing it is to continue to live with her. The horror is made worse because, as Romaissaa states, she is a Muslima who covers her hair and for her this makes her roommate’s sinful thought so much, much worse. I should mention that Romaissaa never mentions her roommate by name, but how hard would it be for all the other kids in the dorm at NYU to figure out who her roommate is?
For those unfamiliar with the term, “Fox Butterfield fallacy” is named after a New York Times rejoicing under the euphonious name “Fox Butterfield.” Butterfield wrote an article in 1994 that dealt with what to him was a mystifying conundrum: How could there be more criminals in prison if crime rates were going down?
IT has become a comforting story: for five straight years, crime has been falling, led by a drop in murder.
So why is the number of inmates in prisons and jails around the nation still going up? Last year, it reached almost 1.7 million, up about seven percent a year since 1990.
The beauty of the latest example of a Fox Butterfield fallacy in a New York Times article is that it is overwhelmed by the exact same paradox that so befuddled Fox Butterfield! Yes, the Times did it again.
This latest entry occurs in an article examining different imprisonment trends in different regions. The Times makes it clear from the article’s title that something very mysterious is going on in small town (i.e., white) America: This small Indiana county sends more people to prison than San Francisco and Durham, N.C., combined. Why?
The Times’ confusion is made manifest a mere seven paragraphs into the lengthy article. After explaining that America’s urban centers are busy reducing incarceration, the article turns its attention to America’s Bible-toting, gun-clutching flyover regions, where incarceration is increasing (emphasis mine):
The New York Times, despite its Jewish progenitors, was always too Progressive to be pro-Jewish or pro-Israel. The New York Times was written by and for Jews who like to throw around a few Yiddish words (“nosh,” “meshugganah,” etc.), and who may even go to synagogue once a year, but who think religion is a primitive, backwards approach to the world. They are clean and bright and shiny, and Jews — real Jews — are dirty, backwards and, in Israel, imperialist occupying forces. That’s why you should never believe a word that the New York Times says about Israel, unless it’s a surprisingly positive word, in which case you’ll know that an enterprising philosemite snuck into the newsroom at night and messed with the computers.
Since I wrote the preceding Bookworm Beat, two things showed up on my computer that I wanted to address.
You’re not brave if there’s no risk
In 2006, as part of Project 2,996, I wrote about New York Fire Fighter Brian Ahearn. I spent a lot of time on the internet looking for the ghosts and traces of Lt. Ahearn, and ended up feeling as if I really knew the man who, despite a lovely and fulfilling life, bravely raced into a burning high rise hoping to rescue people from the destruction. Lt. Ahearn was never seen again. In my post about him, I thought a lot about his raw courage and it was this idea — this courage — that opened my post:
The New York Times ran an article the other day noting that there’s been a big change in Sweden, in that increasing numbers of ordinary Swedes are turning against the countries famously relaxed immigration policy. I’ll let the Times explain:
Opposition to the rising numbers is growing. The far-right, anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats had their best showing ever — nearly 13 percent of votes — in elections in September.
The entry of the Sweden Democrats to parliament in 2010 had already opened the door for a previously unthinkable discussion about turning back the country’s policy of taking in foreigners on humanitarian grounds and granting them access to the country’s generous welfare system.
In an ordinary world, anybody reading the above paragraph would, of course, wonder why the famously welcoming Swedes are suddenly becoming hostile to immigration. I’m sorry, but not surprised, to say that the New York Times is not writing for an ordinary world. It’s writing for its Progressive readers who don’t want to hear bad things about immigrants, especially politically correct Muslim immigrants.
That’s presumably why virtually the entire article focuses on the immigrants’ suffering, with only some vague allusions to the problems their presence creates:
As Khalif Samantar knelt for afternoon prayers at the Eskilstuna Islamic Dawa Center on Christmas Day, he sensed a growing heat and a low, rushing sound coming from a nearby hallway. He focused his mind on the ritual, only to realize seconds later that someone was shouting, “The mosque is on fire!”
“We left our country as refugees. We were not looking for food or benefits, we were looking for somewhere to feel safe,” said Abdirahman Farah Warsame, the imam at the mosque where the fire occurred on Christmas Day. He is originally from Somalia. “Now that is gone. We have a feeling that society is turning against us.”
After having made clear where its sympathies lie (with the poor, peaceful, dispossessed Muslim immigrants), the article points out how nasty Europe is becoming, whining about money problems and inchoate fears:
Indeed, the relentless stream of migrants to Europe — propelled by the war in Syria and turmoil across the Middle East and the Horn of Africa — has combined with economic troubles and rising fear of Islamic radicalism to fuel a backlash against immigrants, directed most viciously at Muslims.
After having read the above paragraph, I, unlike the average Times reader, started wondering “When will the Times start explaining the reasons behind — or, at least, the reasons people give for — “a backlash against immigrants, directed most viciously at Muslims.” Let me save you the problem of reading the article: The Times doesn’t explain the reasons.
Instead, as you can confirm yourself, there are “debates,” “resentments” and “suspicions” about Muslim immigration, although the Times reader never discovers the contents of those debates, or the reasons behind resentments and suspicions. Instead, we learn that
Indeed, the only inkling one gets about what might be disturbing the Swedes’ tranquility is this single paragraph:
The party’s growth has occurred despite the fact that roughly a fifth of Sweden’s 9.6 million people were born abroad or to immigrant parents in Sweden. Most immigrants here have access to education, but government figures show a disproportionate unemployment rate for them, more than twice the national rate of about 8 percent. The disparity helped fuel riots in immigrant neighborhoods outside Stockholm in 2013.
Let me say right away that I’m not condoning mosque burnings or hijab snatching. I’m a big supporter of the rule of law, but here’s the little secret the Times tries so hard to hide: The rule of law is precisely what 13% of Sweden’s citizens stood for when they used the ballot box to elect representatives who would slow (not halt, but slow) the seemingly endless influx of Islamic immigrants and the rate of handouts given to those immigrants.
Of course, the traditional powers that be in Europe — the hard right and hard left — can’t have a moderate middle that’s hostile to a third world takeover. Thus, when the Swedish Democrats flexed their muscles in parliament by refusing to approve a budget unless their concerns about slowing immigration and welfare were met, thereby forcing a snap election that would undoubtedly have worked to the Swedish Democrats’ favor, the hard left and hard right entered into a sleazy backroom deal to vote on budgets through 2018 so as to shut the Swedish Democrats (and the voters) out of government. (I’ll explain in a few paragraphs why, even though I’m disgusted by this anti-democratic behavior, I can’t weep too many tears for the Swedish Democrat party.)
And now back to the original point, which is to wonder what the New York Times wasn’t saying when it wrote about Swedes’ growing animosity to Muslim immigrants. The secret lies in the Times’ throwaway line about immigrant resentment leading to “riots” outside Stockholm. Muslims are rioting? Who would have guessed that!
So, here’s a little information about those Swedish immigrants that the New York Times didn’t think was part of “all the news that’s fit to print”:
1. Already back in the early years of this century, Fjordman was writing about the fact that the rape rate is skyrocketing in Sweden. When I mention this to Progressives, they immediately say that it’s because Sweden (pretty much like every American college campus) defines rape so broadly that just looking cross-eyed at a woman is rape. These same Progressives have nothing to say, though, when I point out that “In Sweden only around 3-4% of all rapes are committed by natives who make up 85% of the entire population. The rest are by immigrants – Muslim immigrants.” Even Progressives aren’t foolish enough to pretend that the same Muslims who brutally rape women all over the world suddenly, when they get to Sweden, stop their violent physical rapes and just start looking at women cross-eyed.
2. Even when they’re not rioting, Muslim neighborhoods have become so dangerous that they are now “no-go” zones for Swedens’ police and firefighters. There are now 55 Muslim enclaves in which criminals rule supreme. You only need to look at Malmo, which is about 25% Muslim and incredibly violent, to see the future of things to come.
3. Significant numbers of Swedens’ mosques aren’t the sunny ecumenical spots described in the New York Times article. They are, instead, hotbeds of radicalized Islam, of the type that doesn’t just provide moral support for ISIS, but that actually goes off and fights for it.
In other words, those Swedes casting their lot in with the Swedish Democrats aren’t just being petty people moved only by their pocket books — although it would be reasonable for them to start resenting the vast demands the immigrants make on the system. After all, the only reason socialism worked in Sweden in the first place was that it was such a small, politically and culturally homogeneous county that everyone cheerily contributed to the classic Marxist plan of “from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.” The Muslims, however, don’t buy into that cooperative socialism, which is driving the system closer to collapse.
Nope, what’s bugging those cheerful, law-abiding Swedes is that they’ve nurtured a violent viper at their breasts, a viper that rapes their women, makes their shiny, clean cities dirty, destroys their communities, and emasculates law enforcement. No wonder 13% of them suddenly signed on to the Swedish Democrats.
Still, as I noted above, I’m not weeping too many tears for the Swedish Democrats, despite the fact that a dirty backroom deal locked them out of the political process. Even as the Muslims, who make up about 5% of the population, commit depredations against the Swedes, the Swedish Democrats are turning against the Jews, who make up only .2% of the population and have no history of violence or disruption whatsoever. It’s things like this, incidentally, that make me completely understand my friend’s belief that the Europeans are Amalekites and deserve no pity as their continent swirls down the drain of history.
And just a couple of wrap ups:
The headline to the New York Times article says it all: “Much of David Duke’s ’91 Campaign Is Now in Louisiana Mainstream.” Would you be surprised if I told you that this is nothing more than a dishonest hit piece?
The article has a simple premise. Readers know what a vile racist David Duke is. Because mostly-Republican Louisiana has embraced Duke’s 1991 platform from his gubernatorial campaign, therefore Louisiana is a vile racist state. The jumping off point for the article is the story that Representative Steve Scalise spoke to a meeting that one of Duke’s close aides held in 1992. That story has been seriously questioned, although you wouldn’t know it from the Times, which has not issued a correction or update.
There are only two flaws with the article. The first is that the fact that even evil politicians have ideas that non-evil people can embrace. For example, without stooping to malign American Progressives by calling them “Nazis,” look at how many economic ideas from the Nazi party American Progressives embrace:
Nazi economic policy was largely based on fascist economic theories. In fascism, resources and production are managed for the greater benefit of the state, rather than to increase profit, wages or standards of living. Fascist governments control production and manufacturing, dictating what is produced and for what purposes. There is also considerable government control over the allocation of resources, such as land and raw materials. Unlike socialism, fascism is not opposed to private ownership of capital, provided that business owners are co-operative and do not resist state control. In fascist economic systems, such as Mussolini’s Italy, economics is considered a partnership between the state and private-owned corporations.
One could go on, comparing such things as socialized medicine (Nazis and Progressives like it), as well as the obsession with state control over individual choices so as to grind out vice. (For more comparing the “nanny” side, rather than the killer side, of Nazism to modern American Progessivism you can’t do better than to read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change)
Even though American Progressives and Hitler’s Nazis share many of the same political ideas, there’s a reason we don’t insult Progressives by calling them “Nazis”: The “Nazi” label is a serious insult, not because of its socialist politics, but because of the Nazi obsession with bloody war and racial genocide and enslavement. Last I looked, American Progressives were big on the garden-variety socialism that the Nazis liked too, but they hadn’t started begging for blitzkriegs and death camps. I may not like the politics that American Progressives espouse, but they’re not Nazis. (Interestingly, though, they do have the same race obsessions as the Nazis and, scarily, they’re making headway on the antisemitism. One wonders if those vices are hard-wired into socialism, whether one initially wants them there or not.)
The key takeaway is that, even if you share some political, social, and economic beliefs with a bad actor, that doesn’t make you a bad actor — provided that you don’t share the ugly stuff. When it comes to tarring Republicans, the New York Times ignores that distinction.
The second flaw is that, if you actually read beyond the lede, the article provides no evidence whatsoever that Louisiana embraced the uglier parts of Duke’s 1991 platform. Instead, the article offers a single apples to oranges comparison, and then pretends that they’re both the same fruit. A mild fisking is now in order:
Mr. Duke supported forcing welfare recipients to take birth control. Now there are near-perennial attempts by members of the Louisiana Legislature to give welfare recipients drug tests.
Do you see any correlation whatsoever between forcing welfare recipients to take birth control (which could be construed as a eugenics thing because a disproportionate number of blacks are on welfare), versus mandating drug tests to ensure that Louisiana voters aren’t subsidizing voluntary behavior that leads to an inability to work? I don’t. Incidentally, back in 1991 welfare was structured to give female welfare recipients a cash incentive to have children out-of-wedlock, Duke wasn’t the only one back in the day seeking ways to disincentivize welfare recipients from having out-of-wedlock children. Indeed, in 1991 there were a lot of problems with welfare, so many that, in 1994, driven by the voter wave that placed Republicans in control of Congress, Bill Clinton signed a bill ending “Welfare as We Know It.” The bill’s purpose was to do away with welfare’s perverse incentives, including the bonuses for babies part of welfare.
And that’s my fisking. Done. Because despite the fact that the article purports to compare Duke’s 1991 platform to modern Louisiana politics, that misshapen comparison is the only thing to emerge. The only other point one gets about Duke’s platform is a vague, conclusory statement:
After being elected to the state House of Representatives in 1989, Mr. Duke filed nine bills, including measures implementing stricter guidelines for residents of public housing, repealing affirmative action programs and eliminating minority set-asides.
Following that generalization, instead of the promised comparison, the rest of the article focuses on Scalise, offering a debate as to whether he’s a racist politician in the Duke mode or a racist politician in the Republican mode.
In other words, the article is the usual tawdry, lazy, dishonest hit piece that takes up so much space in the New York Times. It did its work, though, since a couple of New York Times readers I know told me that, by being a conservative, I’m no better than David Duke, America’s most famous KKK-er.
It’s always the same: Over the weekend, because of family demands, I get almost no time at my computer, and my email starts to back up. By Tuesday, between my two email accounts, I have several hundred unread emails. I then do the logical thing: I cravenly avoid my computer. Finally, late on Tuesday or perhaps by Wednesday, my conscience finally catches up with me and I embark on a frenzy of responding to emails, reading articles, and posting.
I’m heading for my frenzy now, although I’m somewhat hamstrung by the various drives I have to make on behalf of young people who cannot drive themselves. By the time you read this post, I’ll have been working on it intermittently for several hours, so I sure hope it’s good.
An obligatory comment about Monica Lewinsky
She still loves Bill; Drudge destroyed her life; and it’s everyone’s fault but her own that her life imploded when her affair with the president went public. Even the world’s smallest violin is too big and noisy to express how little I feel for Monica Lewinsky.
Lewinsky wasn’t 15 when she embarked on an affair with Clinton, in which case the fault would be entirely his. She was 24, by which time she was old enough to have a moral compass that said “You don’t have an affair with a married man,” and also old enough to have figured out that, considering that her partner in adultery was the president of the United States, when/if the fecal matter finally hit the fan, it would be a Cat 5 fecal storm.
It was not Matt Drudge’s fault; it was not the “bullying” media’s fault; it was not Lucianne Goldberg’s fault; it was not even Hillary’s fault, much as I would love to blame her just because I don’t like her: it was Monica’s fault and Bill’s fault, and neither is excused by the bad behavior of the other. Both behaved immorally, both tempted fate, and both got caught.
The only thing that’s really unfair is that Bill didn’t end up as ignominiously as Monica did. Apparently the party that oh-so-valiantly fights for women everywhere (as long as they’re not in politically correct Muslim countries or homes) was happy to kick Monica to the curb, while feting and enriching and even worshiping the man who let her take the fall.
How the New York Times is spinning WMDs
Up until Bush actually invaded Iraq, everyone and his uncle thought that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Indeed, as the New York Times recently made clear, everyone and his uncle (at least if they worked in the American government) knew that Hussein had WMDs . . . because the US had given them to Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. With this knowledge finally out there, Bush ought to be vindicated and the Democrats ought to be ashamed, except that in the looking glass world of American politics, that’s not what’s happening.
Presumably because of embarrassment about having given these WMDs to Hussein, during the Iraq War the Pentagon kept their discovery a secret, even though revealing them would have vindicated the decision to go to war. Meanwhile, back in the present, following Obama’s pullout from Iraq, leaving it ripe for ISIS, the New York Times is saying that these particular WMDs don’t count, precisely because they were old and American, rather than shiny new and Iraqi. I’m unclear on why they’re less WMD for this reason, but there you have it. (If you see the NYT’s author, C.J. Chivers, on The Colbert Report, he makes this point explicit.)
So, in a swirl of finger-pointing, embarrassment, and misdirection, we once again lose sight of the main point: Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Sure, we gave them to him when he was sort of our ally, but the fear in 2003 was that, when he turned out to be our enemy, he might use our weapons against us — kind of like it’s reasonable to fear now that ISIS will use against us the American weapons that the US military accidentally delivered into its hands (if ISIS reports are accepted as true).
On immigration and amnesty, the only word I can think of is “impeachment”
I don’t need to say anything. Drudge says it all:
Oh, and I guess impeachment is the word I’m thinking of when it comes to Obama’s attempt to evade Congressional scrutiny of his deal with Iran. I certainly can’t think of any decent, upright, moral, pro-America, pro-ally reason for him to do that.
A few words about ISIS’s latest video
The latest ISIS-released video gets me back to a point I’ve made before about ISIS. This particular video shows a father leading the charge when it comes to stoning his daughter to death for dishonoring the family through alleged adultery. Other than those specifics, though, it’s pure ISIS: Men torturing and murdering women, children, teenagers, and other men.
What makes ISIS different from all other torturers in the modern era is that other bad actors tried to hide their barbarism from the world at large (although they rubbed their own people’s nose in it to make sure the people stayed at heel).
The Soviet Union hid its terrors in the Kremlin basement and in Siberian gulags. When Westerners came to town, the Soviets showed their shiny happy face. The same holds true today when visitors go to Cuba or North Korea: they get taken on the rounds of all the polished, “successful” looking communities, while the government hides the fear, poverty, and despair that underpins its regime. (Think too of the Potemkin walls China put up around ghettos in Beijing for the Olympics.) The Nazis, even though they used fear to control people within their territory, were secretive about their most foul plans. The most grotesque emanations of their foul ideology took place Gestapo headquarters in occupied territory or in concentration camps.
But not ISIS. The videos we see of beheadings and stonings and crucifixions aren’t copies smuggled out of occupied territory by resistance groups trying to make the world aware that ISIS is a truly terrible entity. Instead, ISIS proudly circulates these videos to the four corners of the earth.
The word “proud” is important. ISIS doesn’t distribute these snuff films merely to strike fear in the hearts of weak Westerners. It does so because, just as we promote the products of our factories, singers, dancers, intellectuals, painters, and architects because our own sensibility says that these products reflect well on us, ISIS believes that it is showing its best face when it crucifies teenagers, beheads babies, or makes a party out of a father stoning his own daughter to death.
To ISIS, snuff films are the good stuff that they have to offer: “You can go to New York, and all that you’ll see are some big buildings, shows, art work, and a tall green woman on an island. But if you come to Iraq, you’ll get to kill people in the most brutal way possible. ISIS: It’s the Islamic vacation paradise!”
In 2001, Holiday Inn accurately predicted the US response to Ebola:
Mark Steyn was prescient too….
While we’re talking about successful tea-leaf reading, Ed Driscoll says that Mark Steyn accurately, yet satirically, predicted Monica Lewinsky’s retrospective about her moment of infamy.
The Lewinsky essay appears in Steyn’s new book, The [Un]Documented Mark Steyn, a collection of his essays. At $29.95, the autographed hardback isn’t cheap but, if you buy it, you’ll not only get a great book with Steyn’s signature, but you’ll also help fund his continued litigation against unrivaled fraudster, Michael Mann (of the false hockey stick climate change canard).
I have to admit that I’ll be waiting for the Kindle version. Because of the arthritis in my wrists, I no longer want big, heavy books. They’re just too hard to hold. And because of my vision, which is about 20/2000 along with age-related far-sightedness, I like the way Kindle allows me to make my text nice and big. I console myself that, when I buy the Kindle version (assuming there is one) some part of that purchase price will still make it into Steyn’s pocket.
The LGBTQ mafia goes after Robert Oscar Lopez
If the name Robert Oscar Lopez is familiar to you, it’s probably because you’ve read his articles over at American Thinker. Lopez, a bisexual English professor who was raised by two moms, opted for traditional marriage. Indeed, he and his wife just had their second child. Unfortunately for Lopez, he’s a man of conscience and, with the societal elevation of same-sex couples who adopt, special order, or use egg or sperm donated babies, he’s bravely asserted that same-sex parenting shouldn’t be encouraged. According to Lopez, same-sex homes are not like other homes and it’s unfair to bring a child into that environment. As a result, he’s become one of the most reviled men in America, insofar as the LGBTQ lobby is targeting him in the most vicious and inciteful terms imaginable.
As between bad foster care and a loving same-sex couple, I think it’s a no-brainer. But there’s a lot weirdness about same-sex couples who sort of create their own babies. I know a lesbian couple that had a gay friend inseminate the more feminine half of the couple. The resulting baby was a boy. The moms are good women and very attentive parents, except that the woman who bore him hates men so much that she cannot stand to have her own son touch her. Meanwhile the other partner also hates men with ferocity, so she’s remarkably cool about the kid. What kind of a home life is that?
When I read the news, I know that biological mixed sex parents can be pretty horrible too. Nevertheless, history and data tell us that the worst situation happens to the step child or, in our non-marrying age, the child living with a boyfriend who hasn’t even married his mother. Adults in a household with a non-biological child seem to yield to some atavistic imperative to stomp out this vulnerable creature that doesn’t have their genetic lineage. I can’t imagine that doesn’t hold true for same-sex couples too.
And a little child shall lead them
If I were a political candidate, I wouldn’t necessarily listen to a 20-year-old college student giving me advice about employment policies, nuclear negotiations, or executive management. I would definitely listen to that same college student, though, for advice about how to communicate with the youth of his generation. And finally, Republican politicians seem to be figuring out that, when it comes to political messaging, it is indeed a little child who shall lead them.
An Ebola timeline
One of the first things I do when I write a legal brief is create a timeline. Seeing how events relate to each other in time can be quite edifying, and it can expose unexpected strengths and weaknesses in ones case. Sharyl Attkisson has performed this useful task for Ebola, putting together a nice neat timeline showing America’s relationship to the virus since July of this year.
I can’t figure out if John Wick is just a garden variety thriller, a trashy blood-fest, or something else. And doesn’t it really matter when it has Keanu? I actually probably won’t see it because I never see movies (Mr. Bookworm frowns on the expense and I’m loath to send money to Hollywood anyway), but a Keanu movie is always tempting….
Some are my finds, most are from Caped Crusader, and some are from Sadie: