Search This Blog

Friday, August 31, 2018

Pilgrim's Chorus in English


One of several voices that are worth considering.
If conservatism inc. does begin to disintegrate, what challengers on the Right could take its place? One possibility is there will be no replacement, because no rival to the conservative establishment will acquire the resources and media connections necessary to replace it. These long entrenched opinion-shapers still dispose over massive financial and media backing; and it’s not at all clear that any rival could muster comparable resources. In some Western countries, like Canada and Germany, the Right has shrunk to near non-existence, and any attempt to revive it has been met with cries of “racism” and “fascism.”

In this at least imaginable American future without a Right, some token opposition to the Cultural Marxist Left will remain but mostly as a meaningless place-marker. This neutered Right in all likelihood would provide a constant diet of Max Boot, Rich Lowry, David Brooks and Ross Doutat, and I doubt anyone in this room would be able to read this pap without losing his dinner. A friend told me about how a gathering of conservative dignitaries sponsored by an organization headquartered in Indianapolis turned into a therapy session for those who were panicking that someone might identify them, however remotely, with the Altright. One of the most frightened attendees was the young owner of a website that claims quite implausibly to speak for “the people.” It is at least conceivable that conservatism in the future will be dominated by such wusses. Watching an ad run by Fox-news multiple times every night celebrating October as LGBT Month, I had to ask myself whether the conservative movement could rise to even higher levels of misrepresentation. The answer of course is an emphatic yes.

And then there is this unpleasant possibility: If a future Right starts out looking different from conservatism, inc., it might be ultimately forced to rely on the same donor base as the one that now funds the official conservative movement. Defense industries, Las Vegas casino owners who are Middle Eastern super-hawks, the pro-immigrationist and pro-amnesty Koch Brothers, the gay-rights promoter Paul Singer and liberal media that will only deal with a domesticated opposition, may turn this Right into the spitting image of its predecessor. I have to think about this when I consider the prospects for adventurous websites like Daily Caller or TV personalities like Tucker Carlson, who try to chart an independent course within the conservative movement. How long will they be able to continue this course, before their patrons and the movement’s ideological censors come down on them for straying too far from party lines?
But I’m assuming hypothetically that some group on the independent Right can make it over the hurdles. And for the sake of argument, let’s imagine this Right looks markedly different from the one we now have. From whence will it come and who will support it? Quite possibly, no one group on the now marginalized Right would be able to unify all the competing factions. This alternative Right might find itself in the same position as the anti-Communist opposition to Soviet-controlled dictatorships in the 1980s. Groups that were brought together by a common tyranny began to compete for power as the occupying empire withdrew. Would paleolibertarians, the Alt-Right, and what is left of the Old Right suddenly come together in a sacred union with the weakening of their shared enemy? More likely, different groups on the Right would vie for public attention; and even conservatism, inc. might survive, as one of several alternatives being marketed as “conservatism” or “the Right.”

What I’m suggesting as a possible future is a free market of right-wing ideas in place of the sclerotic democratic centralism that presently characterizes the conservative movement. Given our present situation, I’d find nothing objectionable if this were indeed our future. In fact given the relative powerlessness of outsiders on the Right, what I’m outlining may look like a dream. But for any of this to happen, two preconditions must be met. The conservative movement must begin to come unglued from internal contradictions; and another Right must be able to crash the party (for certainly it won’t be invited in) with sufficient resources to become a media force. Unless these things happen, any repeal and replacement of the conservative establishment will remain beyond our reach.

Let me however close on this upbeat note. I applaud those who labor to improve the American Right properly understood; and I am pleased they have not yet abandoned themselves to despair. Their labors remind me of a line from the golden oldie movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” in which the youthful Jimmy Stewart tells the corrupt Senator Payne, famously played by Claude Raines: “the lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for.” I know everyone in this room believes that. I certainly do.

The Mencken Club

The theme of the eleventh annual H.L. Mencken Club Conference centers on the question “Is America a Nation?” Commentators may disagree on whether the US was ever a nation in the European sense of being ethnically and culturally cohesive. Some may accept the notion that the US was once such an entity but then ceased to be and thereafter became something else. What that “something else” was then changed over time, until Americans were taught to view themselves as a multicultural society seeking to become open to all nationalities and lifestyles. The heavy hand of government and the PC media played a gigantic role in the imposition of this current identity.

The Mencken Club is one of the few intellectual forums willing to broach the central theme of this year’s gathering; and as usual we have invited distinguished guests to engage our controversial topic. In addition to knowledgeable panelists from past years, we have invited some outstanding keynote speakers.

The first is Ryszard Legutko, Europe’s most eminent political theorist who was Secretary of State in the Chancellery of President Lech Kaczynski from 2007-2009 and is currently a member of the European Parliament on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Professor Legutko will examine the strengths generated by his country’s millennial national identity, starting with Poland’s durability in the face of all the horrors suffered by the Polish people in the last century.

Our second special guest speaker is Richard Pollock, who is an investigative reporter for the Daily Caller. An old hand in observing the Deep State and its war against American freedoms and all forms of local and regional self-rule, Mr. Pollock has been relentless in exposing the administrative and partisan misrule of America.

The unfiltered President

The media always asked for an authentic politician who said what he thought. There's no more authentic president in modern American history than Donald Trump.

It's blimp war! Giant balloon of mayor Sadiq Khan in a yellow bikini to be flown over London in protest at 'Trump Baby' which depicted the president in a nappy during his visit to Britain

Yanny Bruere, 28, organiser of a 'Make London Safe Again' raised more than £58,000 online to pay for the bikini-clad blimp of Mayor Sadiq Khan following the furore over the 20ft balloon, dubbed ‘Trump Baby’

Organisers raised more than £58,000 online to pay for the blimp of Mr Khan following the furore over the 20ft balloon, dubbed 'Trump Baby', which was granted permission to rise above Parliament Square during the US President's visit last month.

The inflatable depicting a bikini-clad Mr Khan, which is slightly larger than its rival at 29ft, will be flown in the same Westminster location on Saturday morning.

I wonder if the American news media will report this.

Thursday, August 30, 2018

The Left is Monkeying Around with the Truth

Sarah Palin, Loyal Running Mate, Excluded from John McCain’s Funeral

Breitbart News has independently confirmed an earlier report in People magazine, which reported that Palin was not sent an invitation, and was told through intermediaries to stay away from the ceremony.

Glenn Reynolds notes:
She had a rising, successful career before McCain named her his running mate.

I vote for Sarah Palin and the old jerk she ran with.

Fixated on Race New York City’s new schools chancellor seems to care only about demographic representation in the classroom.

Carranza made it clear before he arrived that his principal interest is ethnic equilibrium in the nation’s largest public school system, not achieving positive, across-the-board performance outcomes. The system has some bright spots—they’re moving center stage as the chancellor’s obsession with “integration” unfolds—but New York’s schools in general are a mess. As recently as two years ago, 420 of the city’s 525 high schools had prepared fewer than half of their graduates for college or a career.

White House Press Reading - A bad lip reading.

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Despite overhelming evidence, the MSM insists that Facebook, Google and Twitter are not biased

CNN's Oliver Darcy was responding to this tweet in his article attacking Trump for painting "tech giants like Facebook and Twitter as villains in a longstanding culture war used to excite the conservative base." Tellingly, his article did not once mention Facebook silencing conservative articles based on the premise they "look like spam," which took place the day before Trump's tweet.

CNN rushed to "debunk" the claims of Google's bias against conservatives, without mentioning the many lawsuits against Google! James Damore, the former senior software engineer who was fired after spreading a document asking questions about the tech gender gap, is suing Google for discrimination against conservatives. Prager University is suing Google and YouTube for discrimination against conservative content. YouTube continues to restrict access to PragerU videos.

Facebook recently "shadow banned" PragerU, preventing at least nine PragerU Facebook posts from reaching any of their 3 million followers. For good measure, Facebook also deleted some of their videos.

A survey early this year found that conservative employees in Silicon Valley tech companies live in fear that their political beliefs would be found out. James Damore said conservatives at Google are "in the closet" and that Google executives are digging through a secret mailing list in order to out them.

Tech companies like Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Twitter have relied on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a far-left smear factory that brands conservative and Christian organizations "hate groups," listing them along with the Ku Klux Klan. In June, the SPLC had to pay $3.375 million to settle a defamation lawsuit against a Muslim reformer. About 60 organizations are considering separate defamation lawsuits against the group. has excluded SPLC-designated "hate groups" from its charity program, Amazon Smile. The company exiled D. James Kennedy Ministries and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian legal nonprofit that has won 9 Supreme Court cases in seven years. D. James Kennedy Ministries is suing Amazon and the SPLC over this action.

More recently, the SPLC-designated "hate group" Jihad Watch and its founder Robert Spencer were de-platformed by Patreon, and then the crowdfunding site GoFundMe effectively stole thousands from Spencer.

Oftentimes, social media companies like Facebook and Twitter will temporarily ban conservatives for "hate speech," when the posts in question did not violate their safety standards. Christian scholar Robert Gagnon has been repeatedly suspended on Facebook, and in April the social media platform suspended a German history professor for saying that "Islam is not a part of German history."

Like the SPLC's "hate group" labels, these "hate speech" bans target conservatives, not liberals. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has "fully" admitted that "our bias is more left-leaning." Is it really that much of a conspiracy theory — considering the lawsuits, the partnership with the SPLC, and the many isolated instances of conservatives finding themselves singled out — to suggest that tech companies have systematically targeted conservatives?

All this context and more gives important weight to Trump's claims that Google is biased against conservatives. Rather than address the mainstream conservatives attacked in these isolated incidents, however, mainstream media reporters continue to cite the bans on InfoWars as if they were the main issue.

Cunningly, Darcy ignored the de-platforming of Jihad Watch and the silencing of conservative articles as "spam." He wrote, "It was unclear what precisely the President's Friday tweet was referencing, but it came just weeks after Facebook, YouTube, and Apple removed content from far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his fringe media organization InfoWars from their platforms."

Neither Trump's tweet last week nor his tweets Tuesday morning were about InfoWars. By mentioning InfoWars, however, Darcy associated the "conspiracy theory" of tech anti-conservative bias with a truly conspiratorial website.

PragerU, James Damore, Salena Zito, Jihad Watch, D. James Kennedy Ministries, and Alliance Defending Freedom are not InfoWars. Their experiences are real, and pending litigation against Google cannot be ignored in the discussion of whether or not Trump's tweets support a "conspiracy theory."

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

According to these two a-holes, it’s in the “rules for black people.”

Kimberly Strassel Fact-checks Washington Post Fact-Checker about Bruce Ohr

2)"Ohr exists in a netherworld — a subject of fascination in right-leaning media". Right, though piece fails to note that is because mainstream media is more "fascinated" by Omarosa than it is the news that a high ranking DOJ official--
3)--whose wife worked for Clinton oppo-research group Fusion GPS--was feeding said oppo research to the FBI. And that the FBI was taking it even after having officially terminated Fusion employee Christopher Steele as a source, for breaking FBI rules.
4)"Ohr is less of a central player." The guy was among highest ranking DOJ officials. And anybody who works for one central player in this drama (DOJ) and has dozens of contacts with all the other central players (Fusion, FBI, Steele) is by definition pretty central.
5) "Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community." Noble Steele, right? Only fails to note he looks also been working for/helping a Russian oligarch, even as he wrote dossier hyping Trump-Russia. Goes to credibility, no?
6)"the dossier is actually several memos, based on conversations with Russian sources" Well, so says Steele and Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS cofounder). fact checker just takes their word for it. But some suspect a few non Russians might have had some input.
7)"the probe into the Trump campaign originally was sparked by a separate matter that Steele never wrote about." So says the FBI. But it notably won't provide any docs to back this up, and only came up with the Papadopoulos story after dossier was exposed.
9) "(Bruce Ohr’s 278e financial disclosure form lists her as an “independent contractor.”)" This bland statement (i am assuming purposely) omits the key point: That this description masked where she really worked--Fusion--which Ohr should have disclosed, but didn't.
10) "Bruce Ohr and Steele knew each other, apparently because of organized-crime issues." Maybe. But their relationship in early 2016 was Steele lobbying Ohr on behalf of Russian oligarch, about visas and sanctions. Important "fact," right? (gets slipped in at end of piece)
11) "Simpson said Steele suggested he speak to Ohr after the “very surprising” victory by Trump." This statement, and quote that follows, make it sounds like Simpson's outreach was just a casual, "let me do the right thing" moment AFTER the election. But it omits...
12) that Simpson was in touch with Ohr months earlier, at start of Trump-Russia probe. Specifically, an email to Ohr from Simpson in August reads: "Can u ring." Which is a pretty familiar way to email someone you rarely talk to.
13)"But Steele and Simpson did not know that" Really? How can Fact Checker make such a claim? Steele was in continuous contact with high ranking DOJ official, who could easily have apprised him on probe. Steele also had contacts in FBI and in State Dept.
14) "Steele and Ohr had been in contact before the election, though it’s unclear how much Ohr knew about Steele’s work for Fusion." Um, maybe a fair amount, given all the summer contact between Steele, Simpson and Ohr? Why downplay it?
15)"The two men had had a continuing discussion about Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska in 2016" Again, that "discussion" involved a foreign national (Steele) lobbying DOJ official. At end we hear only that Steele was "concerned" re Deripaska. no description of his requests.
16) "And Bruce Ohr apparently spoke to Simpson on Aug. 22, according to phone logs reviewed by York." Doesn't note it was Simpson that demanded a call. Also slipped in late in piece, like no big deal, rather than back in main timeline describing Simpson outreach to Ohr.
17) "He appears to be only a messenger." Wow. So DOJ official passes along Clinton oppo to FBI, from a discredited source. Doesn't tell that his wife is profiting from this venture. No big deal. Just a "messenger." Imagine if official in Bush DOJ had done this to Obama team.
18) "At this point, it’s unclear what Ohr even told his friend at the FBI about Steele’s information" Wow again. Where does this "friend" come from? why put it that way? Ohr was debriefed by FBI agents at least 12 times, contents in official 302s. This isn't water cooler talk
19) "There is also, as yet, no evidence that senior Justice Department officials were even aware of Ohr’s sideline communications with Steele about the Russian probe." Wow times three. That some in DOJ didn't know is one of the problems. Who set this up? Who was kept in dark?
20) "Trump’s mention of Ohr’s wife appears gratuitous. Her role in the matter, as yet, appears minimal." She worked for the main player in this drama, Fusion. And Fact Checker has zero ability to make that claim, since we still don't know her role. Bizarre.

21. THE PINOCCHIO TEST: There are no facts wrong here, so no pinocchios based on WaPo's preferred pinocchio standard. But fact checkers are also more than capable of rearranging words and details to create a misleading narrative. so, pinocchios galore on that front.