How the Libs can win and where Labor will never follow

There are certain political observers who would have seen Labor elected in 2016 to teach the Libs a lesson, but I have to say the thought still terrifies me. There are then those in the Coalition who believe that their superior economic management will make all the difference, a notion so absurd I cannot believe that they actually believe they have their finger on the pulse of the nation. So let me draw their attention to the above, which I picked up via Steve Hayward on Powerline, who heads his post: Gee – I wonder if it might be immigration?

This is where their winning break can and will come from, and I am at least comforted that Peter Dutton is such an excellent Minister and is supported by the Prime Minister. And on this Labor will never follow, because their strategy is to bring in an entirely new cohort of citizens on whom Labor will be able to depend.

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.


If this is true, why aren’t they in jail?

Via Instapundit:

MICHAEL MUKASEY: Trump, Cohen, and Attorney-Client Privilege: The protection has limits, but is it worth testing them over a possible campaign-finance offense?

After anthrax spores killed five people, infected 17 others, and showed up in envelopes mailed to U.S. senators and media organizations in 2001, the current special counsel, then director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, spent years chasing and destroying the reputation of a microbiologist named Steven Hatfill, zealous in the belief that Mr. Hatfill was the guilty party. Another zealot, James Comey, then deputy attorney general, said he was “absolutely certain” no mistake had been made.

After Mr. Hatfill was exonerated—he received more than $5.5 million in damages from the government—Mr. Mueller then decided that another microbiologist, Bruce Ivins, was the culprit. When Ivins committed suicide, Mr. Mueller pronounced the case closed. A subsequent investigation by the National Academy of Sciences suggests Ivins too was innocent.

Mr. Mueller is not a bad man, nor is Mr. Comey. It’s just that both show particular confidence when making mistakes, which makes one grateful for safeguards like the attorney-client privilege.

Well, I wouldn’t say that Mueller and Comey are good men. And neither has faced any significant accountability for his mistakes and misbehavior.

Not bad men! They are evil beyond belief.

Socialist parties are filled with totalitarians

We’ve been to see The Death of Stalin and I could not recommend it more. A tragic story told in a lighthearted way. I am so old I remembered every one of the main protagonists, knew who they were and each had a very high recognition factor. And by some coincidence, this is just now the first item at Instapundit:

TODAY IS THE 124th ANNIVERSARY OF NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV’S BIRTH: Khrushchev was all too willing to assist with Stalin’s infamous purges and was Stalin’s enforcer in Ukraine.   But at least later in life, he came to understand that Stalin was a dangerous maniac. After Stalin’s death, he emerged (hands bloodied) as the Soviet Union’s leader from 1953 to 1964 and pursued a policy of De-Stalinization.

Khrushchev’s grip on power was never as tight as Stalin’s.  On the night of his ouster (engineered by Leonid Brezhnev), he is reported to have told a friend:

“I’m old and tired. Let them cope by themselves. I’ve done the main thing. Could anyone have dreamed of telling Stalin that he didn’t suit us anymore and suggesting he retire? Not even a wet spot would have remained where we had been standing. Now everything is different. The fear is gone, and we can talk as equals. That’s my contribution. I won’t put up a fight.”

Khrushchev is famous for having told a room full of Western ambassadors, “WE WILL BURY YOU!” Instead, he is buried at Novodevichy Cemetery. Brezhnev refused him a state funeral or Kremlin burial. To Brezhnev, he was just an annoying squish.  Take a look at his monument at the cemetery. It’s in black and white–a fitting metaphor for the man.

Unless you know – really know – that socialist parties are filled with totalitarians trying to find their way to the levers of power, you will not know enough to keep an eye out for your political safety. Even then you can never be sure, but that is where you yourself must start.

Lindsay Shepherd crosses over

Lindsay Shepherd was the bunny caught between the Moloch of the modern left and a three minute video of Jordan Peterson which she showed in her classroom on communications at Wilfred Laurier University in Ontario last year. Her story was told here: Resolved: “there are no biological differences between men and women”. Her experience has caused her to have done some serious soul-searching, and has come out non-left which means, by definition, she is on the right. This is what she says at the end, and bless her for her bravery and moral strength.

What I want to get across is that I no way want to be associated with what the left has become. I am not a leftist any more, I would not call myself that. Does that make me right wing, or does that make me a centrist? I don’t know. You tell me. But all I know is I do not want to have any part in this disgusting leftist culture. Sometimes I see myself brought up as an example of leftists who advocate for free speech. I just want to clear the air. That does not describe me anymore.

From Small Dead Animals which also provides this convenient list from her presentation:

What is the Left all about?

  1. They’re pro-censorship
  2. They are victimhood culture
  3. They are all about moral righteousness
  4. They are taught that claiming to be offended results in a moral victory
  5. They don’t believe in personal responsibility
  6. They are completely intolerant of diversity of thought
  7. They are humourless people
  8. They want to make society boring
  9. They want to make it that no one can make a joke
  10. If you are not on their side 100% they will slander you mercilessly

No doubt many more can be added.

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.

“Welcome refugees” is the craziest political slogan of all time

From The Other McCain

‘Europe Is Already Under an Invasion’


On the occasion of the anniversary of the 1848 revolution, Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban gave a powerful speech in Budapest:

The situation, my dear friends, is: They want to take away our country! . . . They want us to hand it over willingly to others. To strangers from another continent, who do not speak our language, who do not respect our culture, our laws and our way of life. Who want to replace our way of life with theirs. From now on they do not want us and our descendants to live here, but someone else. . . .

There is no exaggeration in this! We can see it day by day, as great European peoples and nations, step by step, area by area, from city to city, lose their homeland. The situation is such that those who do not stop the migration at their borders will be lost. Slowly but surely they will be consumed. All of this by external forces, international powers that are trying to force it upon us, with the help of their local allies, and they see the upcoming election as a great opportunity for this.

Europe is already under an invasion. If we let it, in the coming decades, tens of millions will begin to move into Europe from Africa and the Middle East. Western Europe is watching this with their hands in the air. Whoever puts his hands up is disarming himself. He is no longer making decisions about his fate. The history of the losers will be written by others in the years ahead. The young people in Western Europe will see it, when they become a minority in their own country and they lose the only thing in the world they can call home. Such forces as now reveal themselves have not been seen in the world for a long time.

Africa will have ten times more young people than Europe. If Europe does nothing, they will kick down the doors, and Brussels will not protect Europe. They do not want to stop the migration, but rather to support it and organize it. They want to dilute and replace the people of Europe!

You may be wondering, who are “they”?

Media financed by foreign groups, and a domestic oligarchy, professional activists . . . agitators, organizers of riots, chains of NGOs paid by international speculators, which can be summed up with George Soros’ name, since he personifies it. This is the world we must fight against, to defend our own.


Last July, I reported how Orban’s anti-Soros rhetoric was condemned by some (including the Israeli ambassador) as anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, it is a fact that “professional activists” funded by Soros, along with other “external forces,” do support unlimited immigration to Europe, and havesought to undermine Hungary’s government, which opposes this Islamic “invasion.” Hungary faces an election on April 8 — about three weeks from now — and Orban’s speech could be seen as an effort to rally support for his party and to counter the challenge of the Jobbik party, which is even farther to the right than Orban’s nationalist Fidesz party.

Michael Brendan Dougherty is concerned by a passage of Orban’s speechwhich “reads like a checklist drawn from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” but it must be asked: What is the alternative? That is to say, if the meddling activists funded by Soros have inflamed public opinion in Hungary, so that the nationalist government of Orban is threatened by openly anti-Semitic rivals, do we expect Orban to ignore this threat? And if Orban does a bit of dog-whistling about the “crafty” Soros who “speculates with money,” is that worse than what would happen in Hungary if Orban were to fall, and Jobbik were to gain power?

The Left has sown the wind and is reaping the whirlwind, including an ugly resurgence of anti-Semitism. It is a mistake to blame the reaction in Europe without acknowledging the Left’s role in provoking that reaction. The crisis in Europe is a result of two decades of misguided policies promoted by the elites in Brussels and elsewhere, policies that were supported by many American politicians in both parties. It is reasonable to hope that, if Orban wins a solid victory in next month’s election, this will relieve the pressure against his government, and thereby help suppress the more extremist elements in Hungary.

It is a shame, and also highly ironic, that George Soros has managed to rekindle the toxic politics of European anti-Semitism. It will be recalled that Soros was a Nazi collaborator in World War II, and is it anti-Semitic to despise a self-hating Jew? Yet no one could imagine that the Jews of Europe will benefit from an influx of Muslim immigrants. So it appears that once again, Soros is collaborating with the enemies of the Jewish people, while at the same time causing his own enemies to hate Jews!

What is happening in Europe could be a harbinger of our own future, unless more Americans wake up to the danger of cultural Marxism.

Miller’s low life

From Arthur Miller was a communist at Instapundit.

ARTHUR MILLER’S DAUGHTER HUMANIZES PLAYWRIGHT IN NEW DOCUMENTARY: Some controversial behavior connected to the Communist Party gets played down.

Much worse is her fractured retelling of the events surrounding Miller’s confrontation with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and its investigation of Hollywood’s Communist Party in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Director Elia Kazan, Miller’s best friend and stage collaborator, was an embittered ex-Communist who agreed to testify and name names of other party members. (“I hate the Communists and have for many years, and don’t feel right about giving up my career to defend them,” Kazan said.) Miller didn’t speak to him for 10 years, and also wrote a play, The Crucible, comparing HUAC and its witnesses as murderous witchhunters.

Eventually, Miller, too, got a subpoena. He denied ever being a Communist, even when HUAC confronted him with his written application for party membership. The manifest absurdity of his denial would be reinforced decades later when historians discovered Miller had been a secret writer for the Stalinist party cultural organ New Masses.

Nothing in Writer hints at Miller’s underground life, his false testimony to HUAC, or his secret allegiance to the most murderous dictator of the 20th century. Even making allowances for a daughter’s desire to put her father in the best possible light, that’s a little much.

As Mark Steyn wrote of screenwriter and novelist Dalton Trumbo in 2003, when the off-Broadway play that was a likely inspiration for the 2015 biopic starring Breaking Bad’s Bryan Cranston as one of Miller’s Communist contemporaries, “Though the play won’t tell you the answer to that famous question – ‘Are you now or have you ever…?’ – the answer is: yes, he was. The more interesting question is: How do you feel about getting one of the great moral questions of the century wrong?”