Wednesday, April 25, 2018



It’s Time Everyone Realised Political Correctness Has No Place In Cartoons

Should you feel bad for watching The Simpsons in 2018?

This Sunday’s episode flashed a middle finger at concerns that Apu (a 7/11 store owner with an exaggerated Indian accent), is a racist caricature of South Asian people. It was only a matter of time until the topic came up, since the controversial documentary, The Problem With Apu came out late last year.

Towards the end Lisa—the show’s moral compass—breaks the fourth wall, turning to the viewer to say, ““Something that started decades ago and was applauded and inoffensive is now politically incorrect. What can you do?” The shot then pans to a picture of Apu with the phrase, “Don’t have a cow”, inscribed.

Predictably, fans are divided. The scene doesn’t deny Apu is a cruel caricature: it implies you shouldn’t get upset about it. As the show’s success is based on making fun of everyone and everything (particularly a white dude called Homer), some argue that this is all just a ridiculous display of faux-sensitivity.

Imagine being someone that get’s offended about a stereotypical character in a show comprised of stereotypical characters.

Now imagine being so offended by it you make a documentary about it and cry when the show’s creators tell you to GTFO.

Others say it’s easy not to be offended when you’ve never experienced being a minority in an (at least) occasionally racist environment—and when any jokes made at your own demographic’s expense you wrote yourself (the Simpsons’ writing team is virtually all white, middle-age men).

The question then becomes: should you only make fun of your lived experience? Surely not. Writers might fail, but saying they can’t try would be liberal-fascism. For most of The Simpsons’ history Apu was seen as funny, but now is being retroactively judged. Whether this is an ‘awakening’ of true empathy, or a virtue-signalling epidemic that will end in ever-blander sitcoms remains to be seen.

Although political correctness has no place in cartoons, contrary to popular belief, The Problem With Apu documentary doesn’t advocate political correctness. Hari Kondabolu (its creator) isn’t criticising the Simpsons’ right to ridicule a racial minority—he’s criticising their decision to do so (and how they did it). Whether you think this is patronising or progress is another matter entirely.

It’s also worth noting that although Carl (one of the show’s African American characters) is obviously a caricature, the depiction has never really been complained about. This doesn’t necessarily mean the creators were biased, but does indicate that they had a better (or at least, less wrong) understanding of African American culture than they did of Indian American.

Either that or they realised, given the country’s history, that middle class America (the show’s main audience) had more of an appetite for making light of South Asian immigrants than African Americans

SOURCE





‘Let them display their symbols’

Chris Kenny

In a fortuitous coincidence, The Australian today published comments from Australian soldiers a century apart in their origins and inspiration, yet surely linked by culture and relevance.

Former sergeant Justin Huggett reacted viscerally to new defence chief Angus Campbell’s ban on “death-style iconography” and other symbols used by army units to identify and motivate themselves. He says the new directive “denigrates morale” for soldiers and this can only diminish their combat power.

“There’s a lot of history with this. There’s the spirit and pride. I’ve had Vietnam veterans tell me about the emblems from Vietnam. This is a tradition that has been around for years. They are going to be lost to history,’’ Mr Huggett told The Australian.

It is difficult to disagree with the soldier’s point of view. We expect — nay demand — our military personnel are trained to kill, in order to protect our way of life, and we expect — nay demand — that they are prepared to risk their own lives in order to do so. There can be no greater expectation.

We send our military personnel into theatres of horror and uncertainty. We cannot imagine the pressures or the difficulties, not to mention the terror and grief they have confronted over recent decades in Afghanistan where Huggett was awarded a Medal of Gallantry and 41 Australian soldiers have been killed.

I have been lucky enough to meet soldiers on deployment in East Timor, Solomon Islands, Iraq and Afghanistan — their professionalism, dedication and refusal to ever complain is always immensely impressive. Yet, dug in on a mountain outpost in Afghanistan, or bunkered down against terrorist insurgencies in Iraq, we demand they don’t display symbols of death or camaraderie?! They are in a situation where the choice is to kill their enemies or be killed; yet from the offices of defence headquarters in Canberra our soldiers are constantly lectured on gender diversity and fluidity, inclusive employment targets and eschewing symbols of war.

They are paid to kill and risk their lives on behalf of all of us but, at all times, to watch their manners and be sure not to offend the sensibilities of self-righteous human resources professionals and human rights advocates back home.

The other quotes — dating from experiences exactly a century ago — come from our most celebrated soldier, General Sir John Monash. He is quoted in Paul Kelly’s article today from his own memoir, writing about the character of the Australian soldier. “His bravery was founded upon his sense of duty to his unit, comradeship to his fellows, emulation to uphold his traditions and a combative spirit to avenge his hardships and sufferings upon the enemy,” wrote Monash.

“Very much and very stupid comment has been made upon the discipline of the Australian soldier. That was because the very conception and purpose of discipline have been misunderstood. It is, after all, only a means to an end. It does not mean lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs, nor a suppression of individuality.

“The Australian is accustomed to teamwork. The teamwork which he developed in the war was of the highest order of efficiency. The truest test of battle discipline was the confidence which every leader in the field always felt that he could rely upon every man to perform the duty which had been prescribed for him, as long as breath lasted. A soldier, a platoon, a whole battalion would soon sacrifice themselves than ‘let down’ a comrade or another unit.”

Sir John Monash would know. Our current defence leaders might want to ponder this culture, this legacy.

Our men and women in the battlefield need to be accorded the freedom and encouragement to fight for their values and their comrades rather than have to worry about the equal opportunity goals of their superiors or contemplate how they can mete out the ultimate in violence without ever giving the impression that they might be motivated to employ actual aggression. Let them be. Let them proudly display their symbols of defiance, aggression and teamwork.

SOURCE 





Rodeo issue victory puts kids above political correctness

It never ceases to amaze me how far Washington wants to reach into our personal lives. I have always believed in a limited federal government, one that defers to the states and individuals to make the vast majority of decisions. But that isn’t the way Washington bureaucrats operate.

Most recently, the federal government attempted to micromanage how South Dakota 4-H formats its rodeo. All three of our kids competed in rodeo growing up, and I volunteered with the program for more than 16 years. When you’re part of rodeo, it’s clear the sport is heavily dependent on the skill of the contestants, but the inherent differences between sexes can have an impact on the winner in many cases. Nonetheless, the federal government sought to force “gender neutral” competition, putting political correctness above the rodeo experience for the kids involved.

After phone calls, texts, and letters to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Secretary Sonny Perdue, the agency finally listened to those actually involved, hit pause, and allowed South Dakota youth rodeo to continue to operate as it has for decades.

SOURCE





An interview with a most politically incorrect man.  Excerpts:

An awful roar rose up as the hundreds of angry protesters pounded on the locked panelled doors and stained-glass windows of the historic sandstone hall, yelling out a volley of obscenities designed to drown out the guest speaker about to step up to the podium. To Jordan Peterson, professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and fiery anti-PC warrior, the shadowy figures prowling up and down outside the soaring arched windows at Queen's University in Ontario, Canada, looked like zombies. But if the steely professor was rattled, he didn't show a sliver of it in front of his 900 fresh-faced fans.

The raucous demonstration at Queen's University occurred only days before he arrived in Australia for a speaking tour (tickets sold out within days in Sydney and Melbourne and just seven hours in Brisbane, according to his promoter, True Arrow). A virtual cheer squad of conservative columnists from The Australian and Sydney's Daily Telegraph, including Miranda Devine and Janet Albrechtsen, turned out gushy pieces about their new hero. Meanwhile, such is his divisiveness, the mere mention of Jordan Peterson's name was turning some dinner party conversations into cage fights.

Why all this heat about a 55-year-old university professor, who, in his personal deportment, looks as plain and harmless as an aspirin? Because Peterson has the cojones to say a lot of bold, some would say bad, things. Political correctness has gone overboard. Men are in crisis. The gender gap isn't simply the result of sexism but of deep biological differences that no amount of social engineering will remove. Women tend to choose caring careers that pay less; men are more likely to opt for dangerous and dirty jobs that pay more. Motherhood has been devalued. Blaming inequality on capitalism or the patriarchy is a leftist delusion. The Western helicopter parent needs to back off: children are tough and resilient. The term "white privilege" is a racist insult, a self-loathing term used by shallow liberals.

Worse than all this, there's no room for even tepid dissent. Criticise the left and you're labelled a fascist, a toady of the alt-right. Dare to criticise the extremes of Islam and you're branded an Islamophobe. Question LGBT+ politics and you're a homophobe; refuse to use gender neutral pronouns and you're a transphobe.

Western society, he suggests, has turned against men. "We are playing very foolish games in the West," he warns in one YouTube video. "And we could bring the house down around us." When a young German interviewer informs Peterson one of her professors recommends not having a child to reduce her carbon footprint, Peterson cracks, "Tell him he can save the planet by jumping off a cliff." In another video, he fumes that "the radical left has never taken responsibility for being on the same side as the Stalinists, Maoists and Cambodian murderers. At least the Germans apologised: 'Sorry about the Nazis.'

In Peterson, conservatives have found a soul mate, a proudly politically incorrect firebrand with a bracing turn of phrase. Progressives, meanwhile, have been busy going into battle or priming themselves for a fight. In The New York Times, columnist David Brooks backed Peterson as the "most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now", while author and filmmaker Richard Poplak, writing in the Johannesburg Review of Books, dubbed him an "academic bullshit merchant", dismissing 12 Rules For Life as a "self-help book for assholes".

Peterson first attracted headlines back in September 2016 when, in a fit of pique, he recorded a video declaring he wouldn't abide by a new bill introduced by the Canadian Government, which he claimed would make it illegal not to address people by their preferred pronouns. In an extraordinary example of overreach, the university issued a warning to him to withdraw his comments – a threat they withdrew after he read their missives to his YouTube audience. Nearly 200 newspaper stories across North America reported on the incident.

But it was his interview – or rather showdown – on the UK's Channel 4 in January 2018 that became a viral phenomenon, attracting more than nine million YouTube views. Peterson's cool corrections ("I didn't say that", "That's not true", "You're not listening to me") to anchor Cathy Newman's floundering list of questions about the gender pay gap (and her clumsy repetition of "So what you're saying is …") turned into a 101 disaster tutorial for journalism students. Instead of being the avenging feminist anchor, Newman's simple projection on to Peterson of a toxic sexism led her straight into a "Gotcha" moment.

Amazingly, Channel 4 saw fit to upload the entire, unedited 30-minute train wreck on to YouTube (only five minutes of the pre-recorded interview went to air), which led to such an overflow of scalding abuse of Newman on social media that Channel 4 roped in "security specialists". Peterson told his Twitter followers, now numbering more than 600,000, not to threaten Newman and to be "civilised" in their criticism.

One moment, he is trading barbs in a podcast with comedian Russell Brand, or joking with openly gay comic Tom Ballard in ABC TV's Tonightly, the next he is standing beside former Nationals MP and deputy PM John Anderson in Sydney decrying identity politics. He describes himself as a classic liberal, but he's the darling of conservatives, hyper-conservatives and the alt-right. He's opposed to social justice warriors, but warns inequality in Western societies can endanger their stability, and supports aspects of social welfare.

How is he finding his new-found fame? "It's been a profound existential shock," he replies. "It began at the end of September 2016 when I made a couple of political protest videos, and it's been one scandal after another ever since, with the media attention accelerating."

This insurgent tell-it-like-it-is attitude has driven Peterson all his life. He grew up in the small town of Fairview, in Alberta, Canada, the eldest son of Walter, a schoolteacher, and Beverley, a librarian. Although the teenage Jordan was a party boy who loved sports and Led Zeppelin, he had a very serious, thoughtful side. He was involved with the social-democratic New Democratic Party but by 18 became disillusioned with their shallowness. "They didn't like or understand the poor at all; they just hated the rich," he says.

He went through a ghastly period, he says, when the university was issuing him with warnings over his opposition to Bill C-16, which banned discrimination on the grounds of gender expression in Canada. "It was very stressful to have my livelihood on the line, and I was also concerned I might lose my clinical licence."

Yet when he goes on to say that 80 per cent of funding for the humanities should be withdrawn to shut down what he claims is the untrammelled influence of "Marxist post-modern" academics, it's clear he doesn't so much want to challenge his opponents as annihilate them. And Peterson by no means has a monopoly on having his free speech or academic freedom threatened.

In fairness to Channel 4 broadcaster Cathy Newman, Peterson can be a hard man to pin down on many issues. I ask him whether he believes in God, a question he has repeatedly dodged in the past. As I happen to believe it's a reasonable line of enquiry of someone who spends so much of his time at the lectern quoting the Bible, I press the point.

Are you a believer?

"It depends on what you mean."

I mean, do you believe in the existence of a Supreme Being?

"I believe that you should carry your cross uphill with goodwill."

So you believe in the story of Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection?

"I tend not to answer that question, because I don't like to step outside my area of competence."

Which I take as a "no". Do you believe, then, that the lessons of the Bible still stand, regardless of whether we believe in God or not?

"Yes, definitely. I have a lot to say about the Biblical stories psychologically. There is an idea running through the Biblical corpus that you can transcend your suffering by accepting it. It's obvious that if frightened people voluntarily expose themselves to the things they are most afraid of, they get braver. That's one of the pillars of clinical practice."

In one particularly discursive section of 12 Rules, Peterson – who has been married for three decades – asks, "Was it really a good thing … to so dramatically liberalise divorce laws in the 1960s? It's not clear to me that children whose lives were destabilised by the hypothetical freedom this attempt at liberation introduced would say so."

In 12 Rules, Peterson makes a number of claims about hierarchical structures, beginning with lobsters and jumping to chimpanzees, suggesting male domination is at the heart of Mother Nature's pecking order. He suggests primatologist Jane Goodall, in discovering that chimps were capable of killing one another, for some time shied away from the truth of biological determinism. He wrote in 12 Rules: "Because of its shocking nature and great anthropological significance, she kept her observations secrets for years … even after she published her account [in 1974], many refused to believe it."

The social hierarchy of our closest living ancestor is indeed male-dominated, as Peterson suggests, but rank is also dynamic, with some females considered more or less the equals of some of the males. Peterson may be a psychologist with decades of clinical practice under his belt, but that doesn't make him an authority on the evolution of animal behaviour (he spends the first 10 pages of his book referring to the dominance hierarchies of lobsters, but his analysis has been dismissed as a misleading oversimplification by experts like neuroscientist Leonor Gonçalves, of the University College, London).

Nor is Peterson an expert on the gender pay gap. He argues that women are more agreeable than men – by which he means, more compassionate and polite – and uses this to help explain why they're less likely to bargain hard for a pay rise and more likely to be drawn to the caring professions, from child care to nursing. He points to the most gender-equal country on the planet, Sweden, where he claims male engineers still outnumber women 20 to 1. But according to the Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers, one in four engineers in Sweden is now a woman.

Ultimately, however, Peterson's primary red meat appeal to young men has little to do with his comments about the gender pay gap or his reflections on Nietzsche, the Bible and Darwinism, as I discover when I hear him speak. It's about something much more primal.

Jordan Peterson's somewhat feathery voice (one wit unkindly likened it to Kermit the Frog) suddenly turns bass flinty, as he strides the stage of Sydney's Chatswood Concourse. "Societies that betray motherhood," he declares, "invariably collapse." It's the kind of motherhood statement we all agree on, but Peterson makes it sound apocalyptic. Think Moses on high, tablets firmly in hand.

And indeed as, one by one, he runs through his broad-shouldered "12 tips for life", there's a strong echo of what mothers told their sons a generation or two ago: stand up straight, don't lie, speak clearly, be kind to animals and get your hair cut (okay, so Peterson left that last one out). Perhaps men under 40 haven't heard it before.

Following his talk – really, a run-through of the 12 tips outlined in his book – the floor is thrown open for questions, which range from the bizarre (the male insult of circumcision) to basic self-help advice. Afterwards, he sits outside the theatre signing books until after 1.30am.

The next day, Peterson tells me that the continuous careless pushing of people by left-wing radicals is dangerously waking up the right wing. He estimates that he's saved "thousands of young men from the attraction of the radical right". How can he be sure of that? "Because they've told me in person or written to me."

That indeed may be so. Peterson reminds us that Western societies, with our values of equality and freedom of speech, are far and away the best there is to offer in a world increasingly dominated by political despots and religious extremists. "We need tradition to unite us," he says. We also need to believe in ourselves again, and stop constantly engaging in cultural self-flagellation.

For polarising figures such as Peterson, there is an immediate perception that you're either for him or against him, but that's not necessarily the case. At the Queen's University protest in March, a lone LGBTI demonstrator, standing in the cold, waved a placard quoting Evelyn Beatrice Hall: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

If his supporters see Peterson as a harbinger of an ultra-conservative uprising, they may be mistaken. In a video interview, I ask him what's the single thing that people get most wrong about him. "The basic proposition that I'm a right winger of some sort – and that's just not the case," he says firmly.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

***************************


Tuesday, April 24, 2018



Afghanistan war veteran pens scathing open letter blasting new Australian Army chief for 'farcical' ban on soldiers using 'offensive death symbols' like the skull mask

Another politically correct general alienates the troops -- and alienating the troops is a serious threat to discipline.  Unpopular leaders get bad results. David Morrison was a pain and now Campbell.  If it's any consolation Britain has just appointed  General Sir Nick Carter, who is even more politically correct.  Political correctness in the upper echelons of the armed forces even seems to survive conservative administrations

An Afghanistan War veteran has savaged the Chief of Army's directive that all 'death iconology' be banned from use in the Australian Army.

Lieutenant General Angus John Campbell said icons like the skull mask and Grim Reaper were 'arrogant and ill-considered' and 'eroded the ethos of the Army'.

However former 2RAR Platoon Sergeant Justin Huggett has written an open letter to General Campbell after learning about the new directive and ban.

Mr Huggett is a veteran of the Afghanistan War where he was awarded the Army's Medal of Gallantry. 

'As a soldier that served under you at the 2nd Battalion, it only disappointments me even further to read of this,' he wrote in the open letter.

'Going the next step, the fact you yourself are an Infantry Soldier...my head spins with confusion!'

Mr Huggett said he found the calls 'so left of field and farcical' that he thought it must have been a hoax.

'But now, I am just left wondering as to the levels of stupidity that this order can be interpreted or enforced he wrote.

Mr Huggett then goes on to list some of the more well known icons within the Army and how calls to ban them are in his opinion absurd.

'I ask you to consider the following. Have you seen the movie Jaws, based on a big nasty evil killer shark indiscriminately eating everyone in its path?' he wrote.

'Does the proud heritage of the Bravo Company Men and their Company logo of a Circling Shark disappear forever?'

He mentioned Charlie Company and its use of a dragon as their emblem and then gives examples that show why he feels the calls by General Campbell don't hold water.

'What about the 2/4RAR Delta Company Road Runner?', he continues.

'He without remorse affected the murdered (sic) of Wiley Coyote multiple times. Is this feathered beast from the depths of hell a concern to you and the public?

'Are you starting see the point here Sir?'

Mr Huggett then directly references his own mortar unit.

'The most senior platoon in the Battalion,' he wrote.

'Our emblem is the Grim Reaper, with the words 'Dealers in Death'.

'I can tell you this with great certainty...the 1000s MAGGOTS that served in that Platoon will hand over their Reaper Shirts the day the Devil snowboards down the slopes of hell.'

He wrote that to abolish 'years of pride and history' based on 'the minority' of people being offended was a reflection of how modern day society is going.

Then he goes on to point out how the most enduring and recognisable icon in the Australian Army was one based around violence and death.

'You wear it; I am very fortune along with 1000s of others to have the honour and privilege of wearing it, The Infantry Combat Badge (ICB),' he wrote.

'A badge based around the bayonet, the most feared and gruesome up close and personal weapon on the battlefield.'

The combat infantry badge has a bayonet as its centrepiece.

'An emblem or icon that is matched by no other and has no other purpose in its existence other than inflicting extreme pain, bone chilling physical and psychological fear in your enemy and of course horrific death,' he wrote.

'Yet as Infantrymen, not only do we wear it with pride, it's worn as the centre of importance above our medals on our ceremonial uniforms and suits!

'Men have it tattooed on them, flags of it fly in man caves and sheds, shirts and hats are emblazoned proudly with it.'

Mr Huggett asks General Campbell if he will go so far as to ban the ICB.

'This is the most violent emblem of death there is in our Military? Are you getting it yet, Sir?' he continues.

Mr Huggett then goes on to hammer the most obvious point home. 'The Army, in particular the Infantry (sic), are a fighting force designed to kill!' he states. 'We are not and never should be a reflection of society, we are trained and programmed that way.'

He said that he feels 'every effort' is being made by the 'top levels' to denigrate the combat effectiveness of the army.

'At present Sir, this decision is the most talked about thing in veteran forums at the moment...and in no way have I seen any remotely close to positive feedback, either on the decision itself or you personally,' he continued.

He said that any respect General Campbell was hoping to garner from the enlisted men and women of the army would collapse with this decision and he doubts General Campbell would 'ever get it back.'

SOURCE 






The real scandal of the Ulster Rugby rape trial

Punishing men who were found not guilty makes a mockery of justice

Ulster rugby players Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding were accused of rape and found not guilty, and yet they have been sacked by their club.

Their case is hugely controversial. They stood accused of raping a female student at a house party two years ago. Jackson was also accused of sexual assault. Two other men, Blane McIlroy and Rory Harrison, were accused of indecent exposure and of perverting the course of justice respectively. The jury came to its decision after three hours and 45 minutes: it delivered a unanimous not guilty verdict to all charges.

End of story, right? Wrong. After the verdict, the hashtag #IBelieveHer started trending on Twitter. Protests were staged outside the Ulster rugby ground. Activists insisted the verdict was wrong. The nine-week trial had gone into great detail about the men’s lives and personal behaviour. Explicit and degrading WhatsApp messages from members of the rugby team were read out in court. The two men accused of rape had previously boasted about ‘spit-roasting’ women and had referred to women as ‘sluts’.

As is the case in many rape trials, the relationship between the complainant and the accused was scrutinised. It was this that led many to claim the court had been unfair in its treatment of the complainant. ‘Why does it feel that in rape cases it is the alleged victim who is on trial?’, asked Irish Times columnist Una Mullally. ‘It is time now to lobby effectively for reform in trials of sexual assault’, she continued.

The Irish Rugby Football Union and Ulster Rugby both revoked the contracts of Patrick Jackson and Stuart Olding with immediate effect. This means Olding and Jackson have either been sacked for being accused of something they were subsequently found not guilty of or for sending each other a few gross messages on WhatsApp. Either one would be unjust.

We will never know for sure what happened on the night in question. But the point, the very serious point, is that these men were unanimously found not guilty by a jury of their peers. Yet today, it seems that believing in a fair trial and the delivery of justice by juries has gone out of fashion.

‘An act can fall short of criminal and still be a deep and awful wrong’, writes Sarah Ditum in the Guardian. Yes, Olding and Jackson may be unpleasant men. But where Ditum and other feminists cross the line is when they hint, or openly say, that the verdict should be ignored and the men punished in some way despite their acquittal. ‘The jury settled the legal formality of their guilt, but, as with myriad other men, the case to answer doesn’t end with an acquittal’, says Ditum. But if we believe in justice, then we must accept that after acquittal the accused person actually doesn’t have a ‘case to answer’ – otherwise we risk enforcing mob persecution and constant inferred guilt upon people we happen not to like.

What’s more, those tweeting #IBelieveHer should be very careful. Have they forgotten that all rape cases in England and Wales are now under review following serious miscarriages of justice against some men? Have they forgotten Danny Kay, who was wrongly imprisoned for two years? Or Oliver Mears, who spent two years on bail for something he didn’t do? These men suffered wrongful convictions or accusations, arguably exacerbated by this believe-the-victim culture. There is a very real danger that instant belief of so-called victims will undermine the presumption of innocence.

Jackson and Olding were found not guilty. And if we believe in justice, that means they must be entitled to live as freely as they did before they were accused. Are these men pigs? Maybe. Are they rapists? No. In their failure to recognise the difference between these two things, proponents of #IBelieveHer are playing a dangerous game. Their politicisation of rape trials will harm the ideal of justice and give rise to extra-legal, mob-like activity.

SOURCE






Newspoll: Voters back migration cut

A majority of Australians has backed moves for a lower annual immigration rate, in a result that will lend support to Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton’s push to reduce the intake through tougher vetting.

An exclusive Newspoll conducted for The Australian has revealed that 56 per cent of Australian voters believe the existing immigration cap of 190,000 a year is too high, 28 per cent think it is at the right level and 10 per cent consider it too low.

A similar number believe white South African farmers subjected to a campaign of violence and discrimination in their homeland should be afforded the same status by Australia as asylum-seekers from other parts of the world.

In a blunt message to both sides of politics, Labor and Coalition voters are overwhelmingly of the belief that a cap of 190,000 for the annual migration rate — a target set by the former Labor government — is too high.

The debate has even divided Greens voters, with more of the party’s supporters believing it is too high than those who say it is too low.

However, the poll results are also likely to be seized upon by Coalition MPs including Tony Abbott who have championed an even lower number in a debate that has divided government ranks.

Mr Dutton first raised the issue of white South African farmers in March following reports of extreme violence and intimidation.  He suggested they may warrant special attention on humanitarian grounds.

This sparked a storm of protest from activist groups and the Greens.

The nationwide poll of 2068 people, taken between April 19 and April 22, shows that 28 per cent of voters support a special immigration quota for the farmers — akin to the special program for persecuted Syrians — to come to Australia but 57 per cent agree that Australia should treat them no differently to asylum-seekers from other parts of the world.

This view was strongest among Greens voters — 77 per cent — followed by 66 per cent of Labor voters and 47 per cent of Coalition voters.

Support for a special quota was strongest among Coalition voters — 38 per cent — with almost universal support for equal treatment across all age groups.

On the broader issue of the annual permanent migration program, 60 per cent of Coalition and 49 per cent of Labor voters claim a target of 190,000 a year is too high, compared with 29 per cent and 33 per cent respectively believing it is about right.

Belief was strongest among voters over 55, with 66 per cent claiming it was too high compared with 46 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds.

Supporters of the Greens — who have policies in support of large humanitarian immigration intakes but also support anti-development and environmental protection — appeared split with 32 per cent agreeing it was too high, 36 per cent claiming it was about right and 27 per cent claiming it was too low.

The issue last week opened up divisions in Coalition ranks over denials by Malcolm Turnbull that he overruled a plan by Mr Dutton to lower the 190,000 ceiling by 20,000.

The Australian confirmed that this drop will more than likely now be achieved through the normal vetting procedures put in place in 2015.

The debate also saw the release of a report last week that confirmed that the annual ­permanent intake was making Australians richer.

A report released by Treasury and the Department of Home Affairs made the case for a big Australia, claiming the intake was forecast to add up to one percentage point to GDP growth each year for 30 years, while making a combined lifetime tax contribution of almost $7 billion.

SOURCE 






Leftist hatred of Australia's remembrance day

At least as far back as the early 60s, the Left have been trying to ridicule Anzac day to death.  That it is basically a time for Australians to mourn relatives who died in war seems lost on them. From the French revolution onwards death has never bothered Leftists

In 1958, homosexual playwright Alan Seymour wrote the play "The one day of the year.  It portrayed Anzac day as nothing more than drunken debauchery. It became something of a hit, so much so that it was on the high school English curriculum when I was there a few years later.

The contempt  has not worked, however.  The celebration of the day has gone from strength to strength with young people stepping up to inclusion.

But the contempt rumbles on.  Below is what the far-Leftist webzine "New Matilda" has contributed for this year's occasion -- an article which disrespects Anzac day.

The curious thing about Leftist attitudes to Anzac day is that the day is actually a celebration of a big military defeat suffered by allied troops. With the assistance of incompetent British generals, the Turks gave the Anzacs a drubbing.

Leftists normally love any downfall in their own society so one would think that Leftists would feel somewhat kindly towards Anzac day.  But it is not so.

Why? Just the usual shallowness of Leftist thinking.  They think it is about military men so it must be bad.  Leftist guerillas shooting at others from behind cover is fine and honorable but brave soldiers who voluntarily put themselves in the line of fire are contemptible



NEARLY one year since a controversial Anzac Day Facebook post which sparked a major backlash, Muslim activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied has once again weighed in to the debate.

The author and TV host came under fire last April for writing, “Lest. We. Forget (Manus, Nauru, Syria, Palestine ...)”. Despite deleting the post and apologising for being “disrespectful”, the resulting media firestorm and ultimately led to her leaving Australia, which she later compared to an “abusive boyfriend”.

“Only seven more days before another unsuspecting Australian gets run out of town for some mild criticism of the diggers,” New Matilda journalist Ben Eltham tweeted on Tuesday.

Ms Abdel-Magied replied, “Hot tip — you don’t even need to mention the diggers. You just need to ask for people to extend their empathy to others.”

“We hate asylum seekers and people on welfare and animal rights activists and those who seek a more just society. My dad fought in Vietnam and he would agree with you, Yassmin — and I agree with you.”

Last week, Ms Abdel-Magied was denied entry to the US where she was scheduled to speak at a New York event titled “No Country for Young Muslim Women”. US immigration officials said she was put on a plane back to the UK because she did not have the correct visa.

She later told Channel Ten’s The Project she was subjected to “aggressive” treatment, with the officer at one point saying she would “shoot” her. “When the officer got aggressive, my gut instinct to use humour kicked in,” she said. “I jokingly asked if she was going to shoot me. She said, ‘I will’.”

Earlier this year, Ms Abdel-Magied revealed a racism complaint about her tweets had been dismissed by the Australian Human Rights Commission. She recently made her acting debut in the SBS digital series Homecoming Queens, and will host Hijabistas!, a six-part series on Islamic fashion, airing on ABC iView on May 1.

SOURCE 

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

***************************

Monday, April 23, 2018



Leftist bias and the Philadelphia Starbucks story

Foul Leftist bigot MICHAEL A. COHEN writes below.  He totally ignores the fact that the Philadelphia store has different rules from other Starbucks -- for good reasons.  So in the usual Leftist way, he leaves out half the story to feed his anti-white racism. The amusing thing about his self-righteous rant is that the woman he accuses of racism is in fact a far-Leftist. As a Leftist, Cohen "just knows" the truth without having to do any research.  He is a typical bigot


I’m a writer, which means I spend a lot of time in coffee shops. In fact, I’m writing this column in one right now. I’ve spent a good part of the past 20 years toiling away among other overly caffeinated workers, pecking away at my laptop.

More often than not, I buy a cup of coffee and something to eat. But that’s not always the case. Sometimes, particularly when I’m on the road, I sneak in to use the Wi-Fi. That’s especially true when it comes to Starbucks, which is a beacon of free and dependable Wi-Fi, comfortable seating, and a complete lack of scrutiny from its employees as to whether I’ve purchased anything.

My experience is not unusual. Never once have I been asked to leave and I’ve certainly never been arrested for trespassing in a coffee shop.

But then again, I’m a white person.

Last week’s arrest of two black men in a Starbucks in Philadelphia is a reminder not just of the endemic nature of racism in America, but also what the unstated yet sizable advantages of white privilege look like.

The two men, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson, were meeting a friend for an afternoon meeting. Nelson asked to use the bathroom but was told that it was for customers only. So he sat down, without purchasing anything, and waited.

What happened next could only happen to a black man in America. Two minutes after they arrived at the shop, the store manager, who is white, called 911. Six police officers arrived and asked Nelson and Robinson to leave. They refused and were immediately arrested for what the police called, and I’m not making this up, “defiant trespassing.”

This is such a perfect example of how racism works in America that it should be taught as a mandatory lesson in every school in America.

SOURCE







Prisoners to Be Housed According to Gender Identity: New York Mayor

Wow! Fun and games for all.  Women who think they are men will be raped 24/7 and men who claim to be women will be having one long sex party with the real women there. More destruction of civilized standards from the Left in the guise of righteousness

New York Mayor Bill De Blasio has announced that prisoners in the city will be housed according to the gender with which they identify instead of biological sex.

"In New York City, we believe transgender rights are human rights. And we'll fight to protect those rights in city jails as well," he tweeted Monday.

"It's the city's responsibility to protect the rights and safety of all New Yorkers, and that means protecting transgender individuals in city jails as well," the mayor said in a statement, according to AM NY. "New York City is one of the first major cities to commit to taking this step, and it's crucial to ensuring all our facilities are welcoming and safe for all New Yorkers, no matter their gender identity."

Anne Rettenberg, a New York City-based psychotherapist and feminist is concerned about the safety of female inmates in light of the policy change.

She explained in a Wednesday phone interview with The Christian Post that she is familiar with these prison and detention facilities in the city, having gone to see clients there, and recounted that they are often violent places.

"It's not a safe place to put biological males in with females, biological males who, at the very least have been charged with a crime serious enough not to allow them to be released on their own recognizance. We're talking about potentially violent criminals," Rettenberg said.

Doing this is "just asking for trouble, it's a disaster waiting to happen, I think," she observed, adding that although it is hard to predict how many people will take advantage of the new policy "someone is eventually going to get raped, statistically it's going to happen at some point."

Yet Carmelyn Malais, who heads the city's Commission on Human Rights said that "respecting someone's gender identity or gender expression is key in making sure that everyone in New York City is living with dignity and respect," according to the New York Post.

"The fact that somebody's incarcerated or not doesn't really change that. "No one should feel unsafe for being who they are," she said.

Allowing transgender individuals in prison to self-report their gender and be accommodated accordingly was also "an important recognition of the unique challenges and vulnerabilities transgender and gender nonconforming individuals face in corrections facilities nationwide."

The Department of Corrections now has six months to implement the new policy and a DOC representative said that as of Tuesday, 26 individuals are presently in custody who identify themselves as transgender, and one who self-identifies as "gender nonconforming."

In 2016 Mayor De Blasio signed an order instructing all public schools, recreation centers and other city buildings that have single-sex bathrooms and locker rooms to allow people to use the facilities of the gender with which they identify.

SOURCE





Is 'Old-Fashioned' Returning?
   
It’s a modern changing world
Everything is moving fast.
But when it comes to love I like
What they did in the past.

—The Everly Brothers, 1962

Call me old-fashioned — and I’ve been called worse — but do I sense the possible end to the sexual revolution, which exploded in the ‘60s and whose fallout continues today?

Women complain that men won’t commit, whether in a dating relationship or marriage. The #MeToo stories that have emerged since the exposure of Harvey Weinstein’s alleged sexual harassment of numerous women in Hollywood have also contributed to their frustration. Harassment victims feel used and abused by men who, apparently, were never taught that women are co-equals in the human race and thus deserving of respect, even honor. I know, that last sounds old-fashioned.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has written about a new book by Joanna Coles, chief content officer of Hearst magazines and the former editor of Cosmopolitan and Marie Claire, titled Love Rules. The book focuses on avoiding unhealthy relationships in the digital age.

Coles spoke to Dowd about the young women she knows who feel “obligated” to have sex with men they don’t particularly like and what appears to be a growing “disillusionment with the hookup culture” at Middlebury College, as expressed by Leah Fessler in an article for the website Quartz.

What especially intrigued me about Dowd’s column was this line from Coles: “No one wants to go back to sock hops and going steady, but to attempt to separate emotions from sex is not only illogical, given that emotion intensely augments pleasure, but also impossible for almost all women.”

As a product of the sock-hop and going-steady generation, I rise to its defense.

So “no one” wants to return to a system that largely prevented the emotional, relational and, yes, physical problems encountered by modern lifestyles? Isn’t it the very definition of “insanity” when one expects different results while repeating the same behavior?

There were certain “rules,” way back when, about how men should treat women (though Hugh Hefner would later blow them up). The rules mostly worked for people who conformed to them. Yes, I know women experienced other problems then.

The societal wreckage caused by the hookup culture, easy divorce and co-habitation without commitment doesn’t need studies, though there have been some, chiefly by the late Judith Wallerstein, who spent 25 years studying the effects of divorce on children. She ultimately found that the pain from their parents’ breakup continued to cause them distress well into adulthood.

Common sense and experience also reveal certain things about human relationships, which work best and which don’t, especially for women, who mostly bear the burden when men don’t “love, honor and cherish” them until death they do part. For those of a certain age, that’s what couples used to pledge to each other when they married.

Dowd quotes Coles as saying modern sex is “bleak.” It doesn’t have to be. Millennials would do well to consult their old-fashioned and long-married grandparents. Or they can put on a “Golden Oldies” radio station and hear Don and Phil Everly sing:

I’m the kind who loves only one.
So the boys say I’m old fashioned.
Let them laugh, honey I don’t mind.
I’ve made plans for a wedding day for you and me.
That’s old fashioned.
That’s the way love should be.

SOURCE






Social class in Australia

To advance economically in Australia, you are often told to get lots of education.  And it's true that the higher you go educationally, the better paid you will usually be.  But is it actually education at work?  The great predictor of educational success is IQ -- so those who go furthest through the educational system will be those with the highest IQ. So it is most probably your IQ that gets you that good job.  Education is just an IQ marker that anyone can read.

As a result of that, some thinkers say that the class system is  a series of IQ levels.  What we see as Upper class and what we see as lower class will be effects of IQ, and not much more.  That is why social mobility is so poor.  IQ is highly hereditary so if you are born into a poor family you are unlikely to have the IQ assets to rise above your parent's station.

A curious example of class characteristics in fact being IQ characteristics is from the findings about breast feeding. Affluent mothers make quite a point of breast feeding these days.  To put your baby on the bottle will get you scorned and seen as uncaring, ignorant and very low class. Yet We read, for instance, that "The mother's IQ was more highly predictive of breastfeeding status than were her race, education, age, poverty status, smoking, the home environment, or the child's birth weight or birth order". So it's all IQ.

So your eventual place on the socio-economic scale will be where your level of IQ places you, with education being a marker, not a cause.  And your IQ is essentially unalterable. So rising up socially will only happen if you are one of the unusual people who come from a humble background but are lucky enough to be born with a high IQ.  Your IQ will place you in the right social rank for your level of ability.

Toby Young sets out in more detail the case for society being invisibly ranked by IQ



Social class in Australia is a topic that often goes undiscussed — but if the response to our series on class is anything to go by, some of you are ready to start talking about it.

Some people got in touch to say they believe the archetype of Australia as the lucky country, where opportunity abounds, rings as true as ever.

But others told us the idea that hard work and application are the only barriers to social mobility is laughable.

What was constant is that everyone had an opinion.

The ABC's recent class quiz prompted a number of curious results.

More than a few people were surprised to find their tastes, according to data compiled as part of the detailed Australian Cultural Fields project, aligned them with middle or upper-class woman aged between 40-59.

Taste — whether you'd rather see a pub band than go to opera, for instance — only explains so much of course, and there are many other factors that help explain where we each sit within Australia's complex and confusing class structure.

Sue, a public servant from Darwin, describes herself as a "late baby boomer". She once lived in Sydney, but moved to the Northern Territory with her husband for his job in construction work. "I'm definitely a middle-class person," she said.

"Class in the NT looks much different to what it would in New South Wales. In terms of access to housing, education, employment, health outcomes — it keeps class very much at the forefront of your mind."

Julie wrote in to tell us about her family full of "shop-stewards, miners, railway workers, shipbuilders and plumbers".

"All politically aware, self-educated and proud of their working-class community solidarity," she said.

"My grandfather would say to explain wealth and class: 'Remember no-one is better than anyone else, it is just some people are better off'."

Education opens doors

A running theme through the conversations was the notion of education as being key to class mobility.

Greg, from Melbourne, comes from a working-class background.

"Education was the 'mobility enabler' for me. A beneficiary of Whitlam's education reforms in the 1970s, access to university was merit-based. It opened the door to me," he said.

Brisbane-based policy officer Chris believes his upbringing and education provided him with a platform that's not necessarily attainable for all Australians.

"I have relatively secure professional work and I'm paid reasonably well, I'm aware of my privileged position in the social hierarchy," he said.

"It was impressed on me that I should go to university, that I should improve myself intellectually, financially."

But education isn't always easily accessible.

Alice comes from a modest background and decided to go to university after achieving a UAI of 97.7.

Throughout her time at university, she has struggled to make ends meet, despite working multiple jobs.

"I'm safe for now. But should I choose to embark upon a Master's component, and my benefits are taken away … who knows where I'll end up. As an intelligent woman in her mid-thirties, I shudder to think that my future may very well lie in the streets as a homeless person, making me yet another uncomfortable statistic for everyone else to gawk at."

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

***************************





Sunday, April 22, 2018






Men arrested at Starbucks were there for business meeting to change 'our lives'

Why on earth did these guys not spring a few bucks to buy a coffee? Nothing more would have happened if they had done that.  And they could have agreed to do that at any time during the confrontation. So why did they pointedly refuse? Why were they so obstinate?  Repeatedly disobeying a police command is begging for trouble.

Black ego was at work, I think.  The same big ego that lies behind the high rate of black crime. Psychologists have found repeatedly that blacks have unusually high levels of self esteem and that self esteem can clearly blind them to the rights and needs of others on many occasions -- as their crime-rate shows

And that particular Philadelphia Starbucks has apparently had a lot of trouble with people just "hanging out" there without buying anything. Hence their strict policy of promptly ordering such people out.  You buy first and then you sit down. So the policy was there for good reason and the manager -- who is a strong Leftist, not some racist bigot -- was just doing what she was supposed to do in calling them out.

There are claims that some whites were allowed to be seated without ordering but there appears to have been no videos or other evidence of that at the Philadelphia venue.

It is however true that many Starbucks venues are more  relaxed about that.  This Philadelphia venue was different because of past problems. In any case two wrongs don't make a right and it is clear that the black duo were deliberately un-co-operative.

If there were whites there who were seated without ordering they could well have been regular customers -- and regular customers everywhere are given more latitude in various ways. They can be given more time to order, for instance. Different treatment can come from many other things than race. Assuming racism is egregious.

So what is the big one-day break at Starbucks going to tell Starbucks managers?  Nobody knows that in detail yet but it has been claimed that the training will ensure that blacks are never again treated the way the two adventurers described below were treated.  So in future blacks will be allowed to sit around all they like without buying, one imagines.

That's corporate suicide of course.  Starbucks provides a nice environment so it is easy to see blacks taking over their nearest Starbucks as their new hangout. So all Starbucks venues will be so full of blacks that few whites will go there. So no revenue for the business and it will have to close down. Leftist idiocy at work.

One hopes that there is some remaining shred of reason among the Starbucks top brass but, if so, they will have to be changing very little of the policy that brought on this uproar.  One intelligent thing they could do would be to make the policy uniform across all Starbucks branches.  That would help to avoid any misunderstandings



The two black men who were arrested at a Starbucks in downtown Philadelphia last week and accused of trespassing say they were there for a business meeting that they had hoped would change their lives.

Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson came forward this morning on ABC News' "Good Morning America" to publicly share their story for the first time.

The 23-year-old entrepreneurs and longtime friends said they were waiting to meet a potential business partner at the Starbucks in Philadelphia's Rittenhouse Square neighborhood April 12 when a barista asked them whether they wanted to order anything. They declined and told her they were just there for a quick meeting, they said.

Nelson said he immediately asked to use the restroom when they walked in but was informed it was for paying customers only. So the pair sat at a table and waited for the person with whom they were scheduled to meet.

Then they saw police officers enter the store and speak with the manager, they said.

They didn't think anything of it until the officers approached their table and told them they needed to leave, they said.

"It was just, 'Get out, you have to leave. You're not buying anything, so you shouldn't be here,'" Nelson told "GMA."

They said they calmly told the officers they were there for a meeting, and Robinson said he even called the person for whom they were waiting. But the officers repeatedly insisted that they leave, they said.

"It's a real estate meeting. We've been working on this for months," Robinson said. "We're days away from changing our whole entire situation, our lives, and you about to sit here telling me I can't do that? You're not doing that."

The officers ultimately handcuffed Nelson and Robinson, and escorted them out of the Starbucks and into a squad car before taking them to the police station. Both men were later freed and the charges they were facing -- trespassing and disturbance -- were dropped that night.

An onlooker, Melissa DePino, captured the incident on video, which has been viewed more than 10 million times online and prompted protests outside the coffee giant's location on Spruce Street.

DePino, a 50-year-old writer and mother of two, told ABC News a Starbucks barista shouted from behind the counter at the two men to make a purchase or leave.

"They were sitting quietly minding their own business, and waiting for their friend to come," she said in an interview Sunday.

The Philadelphia Police Department did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment this morning. But Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross Jr. [who is black] said in a video testimonial released Saturday that his officers "did absolutely nothing wrong."

"I can tell you candidly these officers did a service they were called to do," Ross said.

The police commissioner also accused the men of being disrespectful to the officers and said that both were given several chances to leave, but they refused.

"On three different occasions the officers asked the two males politely to leave the location because they were being asked to leave by employees because they were trespassing," he said. "Instead the males continued to refuse as they had told the employees and they told the officers they were not leaving."

SOURCE





A perspective on Enoch Powell

The high rate of black knife crime in London these days is seen by many as making Powell a true prophet

An excerpt from Sean Gabb below


Fifty years ago this evening, Enoch Powell made what is easily the most memorable speech of the present age. Here, below this message, is my overview of his life and politics.

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

I may have fellow countrymen who cannot identify these words. If so, I have yet to meet them. The words are from the speech that Enoch Powell (1912-98) gave on the 20th April 1968 to the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre – a work best known as “The Rivers of Blood Speech.” It is, beyond any doubt, the most notable political speech given in England during my lifetime. It may be the most notable of the twentieth century. It made its author both the most loved and the most hated politician in the country. Shortly after the speech, dockworkers marched in his support through the centre of London. Thirty years later, at his memorial service in Westminster Abbey, the space outside was filled with a great crowd of those who had come to pay their respects.

If, on the other hand, you want to commit professional suicide in virtually any occupation, not excluding sport or driving a taxi, the surest and shortest mode of self-dispatch is to be overheard muttering that “Enoch was right.” He was never forgiven by those who now have power, and never has been or will be forgiven. And the more he is proved right, the louder and more grim grows the chorus of execration.

He never had time for rather American views of white superiority, or for the moral infirmity of the coloured races. You do not become fluent in Urdu, and a scholar of its poetry, when you believe its speakers are a lesser breed. He would probably have been indifferent to the opinions of Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer – not that I think it appropriate to denigrate either of these men thereby. His whole objection to mass-immigration was that the newcomers – regardless of their inherent quality as human beings – were  not our people. Small numbers of immigrants – perhaps a few hundred thousand, concentrated in a few well-marked districts – might be accommodated. But the millions who did come, and their children and grandchildren, were in the nation, but not of the nation. Their physical presence displaced and otherwise inconvenienced the natives. The moral effects of their presence were to make the country ungovernable according to its ancient ways.

We can agree that the second, and greater burst of mass-immigration to Britain that began in the 1990s was part of the Cultural Marxist assault on Western Civilisation. But the first wave, beginning in the late 1940s, was entirely an effect of the delusion I have explained. The British Empire had a common citizenship. If the pretence of the Commonwealth as a continuation of Empire was to be maintained, it too needed a common citizenship. For this reason, British Governments refused, until the partial, and unwilling, withdrawal from delusion in the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1961, to give up on insisting that every citizen of the Indian and Pakistani Republics, and of every other territory coloured red on the map in 1947, had the same right to settle and live in the United Kingdom as my own parents, and the same right to vote and to benefit from the various welfare services that, wisely or unwisely, had been made available to the British people.

I began by quoting two sentences from his Rivers of Blood Speech. I will approach my end with another: “It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre” Powell said this of British immigration policy. But he could have said it of every other failure of the British ruling class to understand and act upon the logic of what happened in 1947.

Bearing in mind the nature and tone of what I have said, my closing may superfluous. Even so, I will give it. I met Enoch Powell and heard him speak less often than I wish I had. I wish I had known him better than I did. But I can say, with not the smallest doubt, that he was the greatest Englishman of my lifetime. I am proud to say that the Libertarian Alliance frequently invited him to speak at its meetings in the 1980s and 1990s, and that we published several articles by him. Of particular importance among these articles is the attack that he made in 1984 on the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill and the principle that it brought into English law of asset forfeiture without conviction.

I regret that I was unable to stand outside his memorial service. But my late friend, Chris R. Tame, made a point of being there. A hundred years from now, no one will remember the corrupt nonentities who fall over each other to denounce Enoch Powell. Equally, a hundred years from now, men will still be reading Enoch Powell for pleasure and instruction. And, by then, it may not be an informal crime to stand up and say “Enoch was right.”

SOURCE





People are dying, so to hell with political correctness

Not a day goes by at the moment without reports of more stabbings and death on the streets of London.

The problem is, no one seems to want to tackle the issue properly. I’ve seen police cuts blamed, rap music and even the knives themselves.

There’s too much pussyfooting around nowadays.

Unfortunately, the likes of Sadiq Khan, Diane Abbott and David Lammy are more concerned with someone getting upset than someone getting stabbed. I know what I find more offensive.

Apparently Stop and Search hurts people’s feelings though. A little bit of stabbing here, a shooting there, that’s just fine, but under no circumstances must anyone get upset. That simply wouldn’t do, would it?

Before taking his post as Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said: ‘I’d do everything in my power to cut stop and search.’ That worked out well didn’t it? Let’s make it easier to get about the city with deadly weapons. What could possibly go wrong? His job as mayor of our capital city becomes more untenable as the days go by.

And despite the body count going up Diane Abbott has said she wants Stop and Search removed completely. Wow! The fact she could be home secretary one day is frightening. If you haven’t got anything to hide, then what’s the problem?

I’m not sure of the stats, but to me it seems that stabbings are becoming more common in Portsmouth too. This will no doubt be linked to the increase of gangs from London coming to the city running ‘county lines’ drug operations.

To sort the problem out people need not be scared to talk about the elephant in the room. There’s an obvious problem with black gangs. But those in authority, with the power to actually do something about it, are too afraid to be called racist to deal with it.

Police need to increase Stop and Search and use racial profiling to do it. People are dying, to hell with political correctness.

During the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland profiling was used to identify potential terrorists.

I don’t see the problem. If middle-aged white men were the ones going about stabbing I wouldn’t have a problem being searched.

SOURCE






End of multiculturalism? Swedes say immigration is top issue ahead of election

Immigration is the most pressing issue facing Sweden, according to a poll conducted ahead of September’s election. The poll’s findings suggest there is growing concern over Stockholm’s open-door migrant policy.

Some 20 percent of Swedes listed immigration as the main issue ahead of the country’s elections, followed by healthcare (19 percent), law and order (12 percent) and integration (10 percent).

Since refugees started pouring into Europe in 2015, Sweden has welcomed more asylum seekers than any other European country in relation to its population. Nearly 163,000 people sought asylum in Sweden at the height of the refugee crisis in Europe, according to the national migration agency. Sweden’s finance minister said in December that the influx of migrants had put a tremendous financial and social strain on the country.

“Integration is not working properly. It didn't work before the autumn of 2015 either, but for me it is obvious that we cannot have a larger asylum reception than we are able to integrate,” Magdalena Andersson told the Dagens Nyheter.

As a result of the country’s controversial open-door migrant policy, Swedish politicians have found themselves battling to win the support of a growing number of anti-immigration voters.

Sweden's ruling Social Democrats announced in January that it would court 350,000 undecided voters wavering between them and the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats with the slogan of "Better welfare, law and order, and faster integration.”

"There is a desire among voters for someone to take control over the way society is developing,” John Zanchi, the party's election chief, said after unveiling the new strategy.

Restrictions imposed after the initial wave of refugees in 2015 resulted in less than 30,000 people coming to Sweden the following year, with even smaller numbers in 2017.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

***************************



Friday, April 20, 2018



Here's Why You Shouldn't Necessarily Believe The Racism Claims Against Starbucks

Starbucks is in the process of being consumed by the liberal pitchfork mob it spent years placating. It's certainly tempting to sit back and enjoy the schadenfreude. But my disdain for pitchfork mobs is greater than my disdain for liberal corporations, so I will now do something I never thought I would do: defend Starbucks. Sort of.

Let's first take a look at the mess Starbucks has fallen into. The company is currently the subject of protests and boycotts and extremely bad press because of two "racist" incidents that occurred in two different locations over the span of a few days. It all started when a video surfaced of two black men being arrested at a store in Philadelphia. We were not given many details — and still we do not have many details — but the image of two black men being led out in cuffs was enough, in the minds of the mob, to prove bigotry. No other explanation has been entertained. No further evidence has been sought.

Then, on Monday, a video from a Starbucks in Los Angeles went viral. In this case, a black man was denied the code to the bathroom because he was not a paying customer. He then took out his phone and began filming. He discovered that a white man had been given access to the bathroom without buying anything, so he proceeded to berate the manager on duty (who was, by appearances, not white). Now that manager's face has been plastered everywhere online, and she has been labeled a bigot and a racist without anyone stopping to even consider what her side of the story might be.

Perhaps racism is really the culprit in both cases. Perhaps it is the culprit in one and not the other. But a rational and honest person would want to consider the entire context of these incidents before accusing anyone of something as serious as racism. It is just unfortunate that there aren't very many rational or honest people left in America. And there are none at all in a pitchfork mob.

The situation in Philadelphia obviously looks quite bad, but looks — especially the look of a viral video devoid of context — can be deceptive. Here is the missing context (or some of it, anyway): the two men were sitting in the store, taking up seats, without having actually purchased anything. That is, technically, loitering and trespassing. It just so happens that the Starbucks in Philadelphia has a policy against loitering. Loitering is apparently a significant problem at that location and the manager says that she has had some tense moments with loiterers in the past, including one incident where someone chased her around the store after refusing to leave.

The store employees tried to deal with the men peacefully. The men were informed that only customers can sit at the tables or use the restrooms — which is, again, a policy that this particular establishment has a history of enforcing — but the two refused to abide by the policy. When they were told that the police would have to be called, they responded, "Go ahead and call the police. We don't care."

The police arrived and negotiated with the men for several minutes. Still they would not leave. Finally the officers arrested them because there was literally no other option. A police officer cannot just allow someone to trespass on private property. If a trespasser will not clear off the premises, the police cannot say, "Well, okay, then. Never mind." They must uphold the law.

Of course it is claimed that white people loiter in Starbucks all the time without being asked to leave. This must prove that these men were singled out for their race. Perhaps it does. But if the men were arrested for "being black in Starbucks," you'd think there must be many similar stories from that same Starbucks location. Presumably, the Starbucks in Philadelphia has hundreds of black patrons come in and out every single week. If the manager is so uncontrollably racist that she actually called the cops on two black men simply because they are black, why didn't she do the same with any of the hundreds or thousands of other black customers she's seen in the store?

And here's another question: Has this manager ever done the same to white people? She says she has enforced the loitering rule plenty of times in the past. Were they always black people? If she has done exactly the same to people of her own race, wouldn't that disprove racism with absolute certainty? Are we sure that the loitering policy at the Starbucks in Philadelphia was enforced based on skin color? How are we sure? Does someone have proof?

The bathroom incident in Los Angeles is even murkier. It is standard policy in almost any urban restaurant or store of any kind to give bathroom privileges only to paying customers. Just last week I was refused the restroom at a cafe in D.C. because I hadn't purchased anything. So, I purchased something. It never occurred to me that my rights may have been infringed upon.

It is not necessarily significant that a white man had been able to use the restroom even as a black man was not. It could be evidence of racism, or it could simply be that the white man is a regular customer and the staff knew he would buy something. Regular customers often enjoy special privilege, regardless of their race. It could also be that he was given the restroom code by an employee who was more lax about the rules, and the black man was refused the code by an employee who was not so lax. Either of these explanations seem more plausible than the idea that a non-white woman working at a Starbucks in Los Angeles is racist against black people. Again, if that's the case, one must wonder how she has functioned at a store where an extremely high percentage of the customers are racial minorities. Was this her first day on the job? And her first day in Los Angeles?

Perhaps it was. Perhaps she's a filthy racist. Perhaps the manager in Philadelphia is a filthy racist. But I have seen no evidence to support those charges. And until someone can provide some, I won't be grabbing my pitchfork. And neither should you.

SOURCE





Sweden’s violent reality is undoing a peaceful self-image. Shootings have become so common that they don’t make top headlines anymore

Sweden may be known for its popular music, IKEA and a generous welfare state. It is also increasingly associated with a rising number of Islamic State recruits, bombings and hand grenade attacks.

In a period of two weeks earlier this year, five explosions took place in the country. It’s not unusual these days — Swedes have grown accustomed to headlines of violent crime, witness intimidation and gangland executions. In a country long renowned for its safety, voters cite “law and order” as the most important issue ahead of the general election in September.

The topic of crime is sensitive, however, and debate about the issue in the consensus-oriented Scandinavian society is restricted by taboos.

To understand crime in Sweden, it’s important to note that Sweden has benefited from the West’s broad decline in deadly violence, particularly when it comes to spontaneous violence and alcohol-related killings. The overall drop in homicides has been, however, far smaller in Sweden than in neighboring countries.

Shootings in the country have become so common that they don’t make top headlines anymore, unless they are spectacular or lead to fatalities.

Gang-related gun murders, now mainly a phenomenon among men with immigrant backgrounds in the country’s parallel societies, increased from 4 per year in the early 1990s to around 40 last year. Because of this, Sweden has gone from being a low-crime country to having homicide rates significantly above the Western European average. Social unrest, with car torchings, attacks on first responders and even riots, is a recurring phenomenon.

Shootings in the country have become so common that they don’t make top headlines anymore, unless they are spectacular or lead to fatalities. News of attacks are quickly replaced with headlines about sports events and celebrities, as readers have become desensitized to the violence. A generation ago, bombings against the police and riots were extremely rare events. Today, reading about such incidents is considered part of daily life.

The rising levels of violence have not gone unnoticed by Sweden’s Scandinavian neighbors. Norwegians commonly use the phrase “Swedish conditions” to describe crime and social unrest. The view from Denmark was made clear when former President of NATO and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in an interview on Swedish TV: “I often use Sweden as a deterring example.”

In response, the Swedish government has launched an international campaign for “the image of Sweden” playing down the rise in crime, both in its media strategy and through tax-funded PR campaigns. During a visit to the White House in March, Sweden’s Prime Minister Stefan Löfven admitted that his country has problems with crime and specifically shootings, but denied the existence of no-go zones. Sweden’s education minister, Gustav Fridolin, traveled to Hungary last week with the same message.

But the reality is different for those on the ground: The head of the paramedics’ union Ambulansförbundet, Gordon Grattidge, and his predecessor Henrik Johansson recently told me in an interview that some neighborhoods are definitely no-go for ambulance drivers — at least without police protection.

Swedes are not prone to grandiose manifestations of national pride, but the notion of a “Swedish Model” — that the country has much to teach the world — is a vital part of the national self image.

Since crime is intimately linked to the country’s failure to integrate its immigrants, the rise in violence is a sensitive subject. When the Swedish government and opposition refer to the country as a “humanitarian superpower” because it opened its doors to more immigrants per capita during the migrant crisis than any other EU country, they mean it. This has resulted in some impressive contortions.

In March, Labor Market Minister Ylva Johansson appeared on the BBC, where she claimed that the number of reported rapes and sexual harassment cases “is going down and going down and going down.” In fact, the opposite is true, which Johansson later admitted in an apology.

Similarly, in an op-ed for the Washington Post, former Prime Minister Carl Bildt described the country’s immigration policy as a success story. He did not elaborate on violent crime. After repeated attacks against Jewish institutions in December — including the firebombing of a synagogue in Gothenburg — Bildt took to the same paper to claim that anti-Semitism is not a major problem in Sweden.

“Historically, in Sweden it was the Catholics that were seen as the dangerous threat that had to be fought and restricted,” Bildt claimed, seemingly unaware that the laws he cited also applied to Jews. Intermarriage was illegal and hostility was based on ideas of Jews as racially inferior. Bildt’s attempt to relativize current anti-Semitism with odd and inaccurate historical arguments reflects how nervously Swedish elites react to negative headlines about their country.

Another spectacular example is an official government website on “Facts about migration, integration and crime in Sweden,” which alleges to debunk myths about the country. One “false claim” listed by the government is that “Not long ago, Sweden saw its first Islamic terrorist attack.”

This is surprising, since the Uzbek jihadist Rakhmat Akilov has pleaded guilty to the truck ramming that killed five people in Stockholm last April and swore allegiance to the Islamic State prior to the attack. Akilov, who is currently standing trial, has proudly repeated his support for ISIS and stated that his motive was to kill Swedish citizens. He also had documented contacts with international jihadis.

“They make it sound as if violence is out of control” — Stefan Sintéus, Malmö’s chief of police

The government’s excuse for denying the Islamic terrorist attack in Sweden is that no Islamic group has officially claimed responsibility. Given the importance these days of fighting fake news, the Swedish government’s tampering with politically inconvenient facts looks particularly irresponsible.

Sometimes it takes an outsider to put things in perspective. A recent piece by Bojan Pancevski in London’s Sunday Times put a spotlight on immigration and violent crime. The article caused a scandal in Sweden and was widely seen as part of the reason why the British and Canadian foreign ministries issued travel advice about the country, citing gang crime and explosions. “They make it sound as if violence is out of control,” said Stefan Sintéus, Malmö’s chief of police.

It didn’t seem to occur to the police chief that both the travel advice and the article could reflect the same underlying reality. After all, only a few days earlier, a police station in Malmö was rocked by a hand grenade attack. Earlier the same month, a police car in the city was destroyed in an explosion.

Officials may be resigned to the situation. But in a Western European country in peacetime, it is reasonable to view such levels of violence as out of control.

Paulina Neuding is the editor-in-chief of the online magazine Kvartal.

SOURCE






UK headhunter Josh Harrison blasts unemployed under-25s on LinkedIn

HEADHUNTER Josh Harrison made headlines after he branded unemployed young people “lazy little s**ts” online — but he’s standing by his controversial comments.

Mr Harrison, a headhunter from UK firm Harrison Allwood, made the comments in response to a LinkedIn post penned by entrepreneur Jack Parsons earlier this month.

Mr Parsons, 24, had shared his own story of unemployment and rejection, and said the UK’s job market was “broken” for young people.

But Mr Harrison, who is a millennial himself, responded by “calling bulls***” on Mr Parsons’ “poor us attitude”.

“I’ll tell you right now that it has never been easier for a young man/lady to find a reasonably well-paid job in this country and I’d go as far as to say regardless of qualifications, if you’re under the age of 25 and not in work without any good medical or mental health reason then you’re either a lazy little s*** or you’re setting your sights way too high,” he wrote.

“I’m not surprised us millennials are being called entitled. Kids these days measure their worth in the amount of followers they have on Instagram [and] they get upset if they’re not a CEO by 25.

“Everyone seems to want to start from the top, not work their way up. No one seems to want to get their hands dirty anymore.

“If you’re young and you’re not in work, it’s because you either don’t want to be or you’re not trying hard enough. Don’t blame society for keeping you out of a job when we’re living in the most open-minded, progressive, equality-focused period we’ve ever encountered.”

Mr Harrison’s extraordinary attack on members of his own generation was quickly picked up by the UK media — but the man who claims to be “one of the most viewed recruiters on LinkedIn in the UK” remains unrepentant.

In another post on LinkedIn, he has hit back at “biased” media reports about the stoush, and criticised Mr Parsons for labelling his comments as examples of “bullying”.

“Looking over my post numerous times, I just can’t comprehend how he comes to that conclusion. I do mention his name and call ‘bullshit’ on his opinion but the rest of the post itself is simply my opinion on our generation and how some of us could be labelled as being entitled,” he wrote.

“Jack himself says in the comments below my post that he is an advocate of freedom of speech, yet it seems like any opinion expressed that’s not aligned with his own is classed as ‘bullying’.”

He said Mr Parsons’ reaction to his opinion was “exactly the snowflake, entitled, sh*tty ‘poor me’ behaviour I was discussing in the original post”.

Opinion over the row is divided on social media, with some followers applauding Mr Harrison for his honesty while others insisted young people faced unique challenges when it came to finding a job in today’s market.

SOURCE






Bozell: Social Giants Perpetrating World’s ‘Greatest Censorship of Free Speech in History’

Facebook, Google, Twitter, and YouTube are all on a global “jihad against conservative thought,” Media Research Center (MRC) President Brent Bozell warned Monday.

Bozell, appearing on the Fox News Channel’s “Ingraham Angle” to discuss a new MRC/NewsBusters study documenting how the leftist social media giants are censoring and targeting conservatives, said the danger of the social media “jihad” cannot be overstated:

“It’s 50 pages documenting what conservatives have been suggesting has been happening. This is -- it sounds hyperbolic, but Laura, this is true.

“This is the emerging of the greatest censorship of free speech worldwide in the history of man. Now let me explain this. The left is on a jihad against conservative thought.”

“It's not just happening in the United States; it’s all over the world that the left is militant. Conservatives have to recognize this and conservatives have to start looking for new homes.”

The bias of the leftist social media giants is influencing billions of people worldwide, Bozell warned:

“These social media giants have audiences in the billions. And what we’ve shown in this massive report is whether it is Facebook, or Twitter, or Google, or YouTube, they are all employing different tactics to go against conservatives.”

Bozell was supportive of the suggestion that conservatives need “our own platforms” – but, noted that the founders of social media platforms like Facebook know that their businesses can’t survive if conservatives boycott them:

“I think we’re going to have to - but, Mark Zuckerberg knows, if conservatives leave, if they leave, the business model for these social media giants collapses.”

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

***************************