Dangerous to our freedom and our culture

From The Conservative Case for Breaking Up Monopolies Such as Google and Facebook

Tucker Carlson


The big digital monopolies demand that we conform to their worldview and shut us down when we dissent. They have too much power. They are are threat to this country. Congress is doing nothing about it. It’s time to complain, while we still can. @FoxNews

When he tweeted these words, Carlson was expressing a sentiment that many on the right have come to embrace. People are concerned, with good reason, that big tech companies discriminate against conservatives. Numerous conservative outlets have had their videos demonetized on Google’s YouTube. PragerU is appealing their loss in a lawsuit over that. A study by The Western Journal showed that a change to Facebook’s algorithm disproportionately harmed conservative sites.

In normal circumstances, this wouldn’t be a problem for government to solve, but social media has come to dominate our national conversation. Large political websites thrive or die based on changes to Facebook and Google algorithms. Everyone from cable news to newspapers to online-only publications create and tweak their content based on how they think it will play on social media. A study has also shown that Google search results can have a frighteningly large impact on elections.


Getting their priorities right

Which is the main story and which is the also ran?


Political madness

On behalf of no principle, no actual evidence of wrong doing, in the midst of a presidential term that is solving many problems both international and domestic that had looked insoluble, we have the American left, dangerous always, but now acting well beyond any kind of temperate zone of sense and proportion. They recognise, along with the Republican fake conservatives and the left’s media enablers, that if Trump succeeds, as he appears to be doing, there will be a political realignment that will leave them out in the freezing cold for at least a generation.

They would rather ruin our Western civilisation and our civic norms than allow Donald Trump to show the world how it is done.

Here some thoughts to mull over as the media-administrative state conspiracy continues to rock along.

SHOW ME THE MAN AND I’LL FIND YOU THE CRIME. Roger Simon asks, Worse than Beria? Mueller Could Damage the World.


“Shallow, lazy ignoramus”

My nitwit former friend out in California continues to send me articles from the media basically framed around how disastrous Donald Trump has been, is now and ever will be. Although he sends me one or two of these a day, I decided he was no longer my friend when he didn’t wish me a happy birthday since he obviously knows my address and thinks of me all the time. Kind of sad, really, but having become a wealthy, Porsche-driving, profit-maximising-to-the-hilt Silicon-Valley CEO, although also a refugee from 1956 communist Hungary, he sent me this the other day: Capitalism: A Disaster for All Seasons, from The Nation of all things. This is the sub-head which is really all you need to know:

For every San Francisco earthquake and Superstorm Sandy, some die—and others profit.

It’s almost as if they think the capitalists cause the earthquakes and hurricanes, and for all I know that is what they really believe. But why I mention this at all is something he just sent me this the other day: How Trump lost Ann Coulter. It’s from CNN so you already know it’s slanted and inane, but if they are willing to say a nice word about Ann, it must be truly terrible about PDT.

The right-wing rabble-rouser Ann Coulter recently declared at a talk at Columbia University that the President was a “shallow, lazy ignoramus” and that she’s now a former Trumper. “If he doesn’t have us anymore, that’s what he should be worried about,” Coulter later told The New York Times. “He’s not giving us what he promised at every campaign stop.”

It really is astonishing that Ann has gone so 180 on Trump, and if this is really what she thinks, the words “shallow, lazy ignoramus” really do apply to her. The fact of the matter is that there is not a single thing PDT is trying to achieve that I do not agree with. That he is finding it difficult given the opposition from the Democrats, the media and half the Republican Party is incredible to watch, but that he is succeeding on much of it and making progress on all of it, still feels like a political miracle. I might imagine that one day I will come to the conclusion that it was too great a task for anyone to achieve, but I doubt it will ever cross my mind that anyone else could have done anywhere near as well.

And you know what? He might even succeed. As for the Ann Coulters of the world, these fair weather friends are political idiots of which there is an endless supply.

PDT 50% approval!

And from Powerline: Trump is now more popular than Obama.

Media hostility to President Trump has been unremitting since he secured the Republican nomination. It didn’t stop, or even slow down, with his inauguration. The many achievements of his young administration haven’t given the press pause, either: his coverage continues to be just about 100% negative.

What, then, to make of the fact that Rasmussen Reports, which conducts the only daily presidential approval poll of likely voters, finds Trump at 50% approval and 49% disapproval? Those are better numbers than Barack Obama had in the same survey at the same point in his administration, and the press boosted Obama almost as relentlessly as it denigrates Trump.

At a minimum, it means that a great many Americans have figured out that the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, NBC, CNN, etc. are partisan outlets and not to be trusted. This, of course, is a process that has been going on for a long time. Indeed, it largely brought into being the “blogosphere” of a decade and more ago. But it seems to me that we are seeing something like its culmination. The liberal media have so thoroughly squandered their standing with the public that their capacity to do ill is limited.

That doesn’t mean that the press does no damage at all. As I have often said, we can’t even imagine what a world without a liberal press, academia and entertainment industry would look like. In a neutral world, among many more profound consequences, President Obama could never have won a second term, President Trump would be riding high, and no one would be worried about the midterm elections. Still, the fact that most Americans seem to be tuning out the press can only be a good thing.

It must have been the Stormy Daniels story that’s made the difference.

Which means they hate you

The rest is from Steve Hayward’s post at Powerline: REMINDER: THE LEFT HATES OUR CIVILIZATION.

I know I’ve made the point before, but there is fresh evidence in recent weeks of how much the left today hates western civilization and human excellence in general. Once again the left is determined to flunk what I’ve long called “the Churchill test.”

Once upon a time leading liberals loved Churchill. Think of Isaiah Berlin’s great 1949 Atlantic Monthly essay, “Churchill in 1940,” or how much Arthur Schlesinger loved him, not to mention the total fanboy crush JFK had on Churchill. Remember, too, that in the 1950s some leading American conservatives were not all that enthusiastic about Churchill; William F. Buckley Jr. was downright hostile to him (though he changed his mind), and Pat Buchanan still dislikes Churchill.

But in the aftermath of Darkest Hour and the best actor Academy Award going to Gary Oldman, voices on the left are at it again, calling Churchill a “war criminal” and mass murderer on the same scale as Hitler or Stalin. A popular Indian politician, Shashi Tharoor, wrote in the Washington Post that “In Winston Churchill, Hollywood Rewards a Mass Murderer.” Apparently the Washington Post has decided to reward morons.

Here’s the breathless conclusion of Tharoor’s Post piece:

This week’s Oscar rewards yet another hagiography of this odious man. To the Iraqis whom Churchill advocated gassing, the Greek protesters on the streets of Athens who were mowed down on Churchill’s orders in 1944, sundry Pashtuns and Irish, as well as to Indians like myself, it will always be a mystery why a few bombastic speeches have been enough to wash the bloodstains off Churchill’s racist hands.

Many of us will remember Churchill as a war criminal and an enemy of decency and humanity, a blinkered imperialist untroubled by the oppression of non-white peoples. Ultimately, his great failure — his long darkest hour — was his constant effort to deny us freedom.

Tharoor’s case depends on repeating a number of undying myths about Churchill, or gross distortions of badly tangled affairs. Soren Geiger does a terrific job of unwinding the more egregious claims Tharoor makes in this article in the American Spectator. But Tharoor has lots of company. Shree Paradkar, the “race and gender columnist” of the Toronto Star . . . actually I could pretty much just stop right here, couldn’t it? But no, you need to take in some of her “Winston Churchill, the barbaric monster with the blood of millions on his hands” article to believe it. It includes gems such as:

Oldman might as well have danced on 3 million dead bodies, many of whose loved ones were too weak to cremate or bury them.  Such tributes for a heinous white supremacist who once declared that “Aryan tribes were bound to triumph.” Words as hollow as the tunnel-visioned ideals on which people fashion this man, but they can’t stem the drip, drip of blood from his hands.

Fortunately we have Terry Reardon of Hilldale College’s Churchill Project on the job refuting Paradkar’s paranoia point-by-point, but see also Richard Langworth, who offers up a catalogue of fresh attacks on Churchill from leftist ignoramuses. Richard notes at the end of this bibliography of nihilism:

Nearly forty years ago an equally great Churchill performance, Robert Hardy in The Wilderness Years,  was received with equal acclaim by press and public. There was no chorus of hate, no trumped-up charges, no hint that Churchill’s overall record was in any way debatable. Alas times have changed.

As for the calumny of Churchill’s supposed role in the Bengal famine of World War II, I wonder if any of Churchill’s detractors have ever asked how many would have starved if Japan had succeeded in conquering the Asian subcontinent, which is what surely would have happened if any of them had been in charge?

Times have changed indeed. The left’s fundamental self-loathing of the western inheritance, hostility to human excellence, and childlike grasp of political reality has led to these increasingly candid expressions, for which in a sense we should be grateful—at least the left is being more honest.

Here once again we should repair to the observation of British historian Sir Geoffrey Elton, who wrote: “There are times when I incline to judge all historians by their opinion of Winston Churchill: whether they can see that, no matter how much better the details, often damaging, of man and career become known, he still remains, quite simply, a great man.”

Ah—that “great man” thing: contemporary leftist egalitarians cannot tolerate such distinctions among human beings.

Politically corrected

From Powerline which did truly make me laugh.


I had thought that the New York Review of Books took the prize for the most gobsmacking correction for this item related to its recent hit piece on Jordan Peterson:

Of course, this mistake is understandable at the NYRB, as they always hoped that Solzhenitsyn’s revelations about the character of the Soviet Union were fiction.

But then there’s this from the Wall Street Journal today:

With all of the talk of “fake news,” maybe we’re missing a simpler explanation: journalists and editors these days are just abysmally ignorant.

Is this a sign of things to come?


Now back to where we began:

And if you go to the first link, this is what it says:

Roseanne Conner Has Become a
Trump Supporter. Just Like Her Creator.
After 21 years, “Roseanne” returns to ABC, and Roseanne
Barr’s portrait of working-class Americans is as topical as ever.

As for a sign of the future, the media are throwing away half of the American audience who somehow get Trump, when most of the over-educated nitwit class cannot see what is right before their eyes.


Show’s liberal writers on their struggle: ‘Lets not be mouthpieces’…  

Obviously need to curb my enthusiasm.

How did it develop that Roseanne was a Trump supporter?
When one of my agents called me to bring up me going back on the show, the way he pitched it was “Roseanne in the time of Trump.” Originally I thought, like everybody else, that she would not be a supporter of Trump. But the moment we got in the writers’ room with Roseanne, she really wanted to be a supporter of Trump, not because she is one herself, but there are a lot of people in the Midwest who voted for him. We had debates and discussions. [Writer] Dave Kaplan and I were two of the people who had least understood that there are people who voted for him who aren’t misogynists or racists and who felt betrayed by other administrations. They really believed Trump was going to do something for them. It made sense when we really talked about it.

Are you saying a majority of the other writers didn’t agree?
Most writers, including me, are more liberal than we are conservative for sure. I’m no fan of Trump at all. Some people were new to the show. We had to keep reminding people that this is not how we feel. It’s how the Conners as real people would react to what they perceive as somebody who might help them out. We are all pretty liberal people so you have to step back and say, let’s not be mouthpieces for what we believe. Let’s deal with who these characters are as people, whether we agree with who she voted for or not.

What else can they say if they ever wish to work in Hollywood again?