PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.

Search Results


Knitting, which helps lower the blood pressure and keep the mind busy, has enjoyed an upsurge in popularity in recent years. The Internet has allowed for the proliferation of new platforms from which to buy yarn and patterns, and has helped connect artisans and hobbyists worldwide. Usually, it’s a calming and creative pastime focussed on aesthetics rather than politics. However, a short browse through the knitting posts on Instagram steered me in the direction of the source of the exchange I had overhead and the “conversation” it had produced.

On January 7, Karen Templer, a knitting designer and owner of the online store Fringe Association, published an innocuous blog post on her website entitled “2019: My Year of Colour,” in which she enthused about her forthcoming trip to India. To most observers, Templer’s post will read like a guileless account of her hopes and aspirations for her upcoming travels.

You’ll totally believe what happened next.


Once you start seeing our own culture through the eyes of people who grew up under communism, you can easily observe that the left’s embrace of identity politics — including woke capitalism, academia, news and entertainment media — has already built the cultural and psychological structure for left-wing totalitarianism. What they lack now is political power to write these things into law. Kavanaugh, the Covington Catholic boys, Ralph Northam, and Amelie Wen Zhao — these are all manifestations of what’s to come under the cultural socialism of our new Democrats.

Meanwhile, over at Power Line, Steve Hayward charts “The Laffer Curve of the Left:”

Well, Democrats have gotten over it. They know that the punitive taxes they wish to impose on the super rich won’t generate anywhere close to the revenue needed for their Green New Medicare-for-All Free College and Puppies-for-Everyone Deal, but no problem! We can just print all the money we need!

No, seriously, that’s their plan. The left has not only forgotten about the failure of socialism (okay, yes, yes, they never knew that in the first place, but still); they have apparently forgotten about inflation from monetary indiscipline, too. It’s called “Modern Monetary Theory,” and it says that sovereign debt is good, and that the United States is especially blessed with super-borrowing capacity because the dollar reign supreme. So we should borrow like there’s no tomorrow. Of course, since we’re reliably informed that we only have 12 years lefty to solve climate change, why not?

A lot can go wrong in a decade and change in a socialist administration that prints money like it’s no tomorrow. Just ask the Weimar Republic, where in 1923, this could buy you a loaf of bread — until it couldn’t:

YOUR DAILY TREACHER: Could We Please Stop Comparing Everything to Hitler?

Featuring on the left, Cory Booker, who looks at AOC’s GND and says, “when the planet has been imperiled in the past, who came forward to save Earth from the scourge of Nazi and totalitarian regimes? We came forward!” And on the right, “Turning Point USA’s Candace Owens [who was] speaking in London recently. She was asked for her opinion on nationalism, and… Well, just listen:”

“Whenever we say ‘nationalism,’ the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. He was a National Socialist. But if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay, fine. The problem is that he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German, everybody to look a different way. That’s not, to me, that’s not nationalism… I have no problems with nationalism. It’s globalism that I try to avoid.”

This week’s American edition of the London Spectator features a profile of Turning Point USA, with a photo atop the article of Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens in a “Socialism Sucks” T-shirts. Doesn’t Owens believe that the ideology that called itself the National-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei took the S-portion of their name seriously?

Or as Roger De Bris said in Mel Brooks’ The Producers, after reading the screenplay for “Springtime for Hitler,” “A stunning piece of work. Did you know, I never knew that the Third Reich meant Germany. I mean it’s just drenched with historical goodies like that!”

Related: “Throwing disabled people, leftists, and Jews in camps? Sure, fine, whatever, but don’t you DARE invade Poland.”

LANCE MORROW: The Longest Day for Trump’s Adversaries: His State of the Union address dramatically advanced his case for re-election in 2020.

On Tuesday Mr. Trump enlarged the public’s idea of himself and his presidency, and in proportion diminished his enemies. That was his most effective stroke on Tuesday night: to make the left seem to be lost in irrelevant obsessions and guilty of misinterpreting—falsifying—America and its values.

He redrew the battleground, leading the discussion abruptly away from progressives’ preoccupations with race and sex. He redefined himself in a more civilized light and sought to lend credibility and bipartisanship to his “Make America Great Again” theme by evoking American history and summoning the better angels. He fetched back to the 20th century’s binary moral perspectives, to the victorious fight against Nazi Germany and to the Cold War against communism.

The speech sought to annul, or at least soften, the left’s radical critique of American history, which has been the theme of elites since the 1960s, and to define Mr. Trump not as a chief of yahoos but a leader of a thoughtful, broadly respectable patriotism. It’s wishful thinking to hope that the speech might help to break the cycle of mutual contempt that has so demoralized the country.

The web has teemed for the past few years with comparisons of Mr. Trump to Hitler, warnings that Trumpism was the start of a new Reich. Mr. Trump installed two Jewish guests in the House gallery—Herman Zeitchik, who went ashore at Normandy in 1944, and Joshua Kaufman, whom Mr. Zeitchik helped liberate from Dachau the following year. The television picture of those two old Jewish men might have come from the epilogue to “Schindler’s List.” Mr. Trump beamed upon them from the podium as if, like Prospero, he had conjured this sweet denouement out of thin air.

The president twice mentioned the mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, and he proudly took credit for moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. If Hitler was history’s supreme anti-Semite, Mr. Trump did a fair job of presenting himself as the opposite.

The president played a sly game of trapping his antagonists into applauding when they would have wished to sit on their hands or jeer. The white-clad vestal brigade of new Democratic congresswomen, including that one from Michigan who’d proclaimed her intention to “impeach the m—f—,” were seen turning to one another in confusion and trying to decide whether they would look worse applauding or sitting still.

Mr. Trump manipulated the theatrics inherent in the State of the Union, including the TV cameras’ restless and vigilant reaction shots, to his advantage. As he promised that America would never become a socialist country, the camera focused on the glowering self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, who looked like a grumpy old man out of Dostoevsky.

Mr. Trump turned things upside down. Portrayed by the left as a lawless president, he insisted on the rule of law, especially regarding immigration. Condemned as a racist, he defused the issue, to a degree, by embracing prisoners’ rights and condemning discrimination in the justice system.

Yes. As I said yesterday, “One of the most interesting things about Trump’s speech last night is how it seemed calculated to demolish all the standard anti-Trump tropes from the media and from the left and to do so with compelling imagery.”

SO ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT TRUMP’S SPEECH LAST NIGHT is how it seemed calculated to demolish all the standard anti-Trump tropes from the media and from the left and to do so with compelling imagery. Consider:

Trump’s a Nazi: Praise for Holocaust survivors, and a touching rendition of “Happy Birthday.” (With Trump waving his fingers like a conductor).

Trump hates minorities: Brags about record low black, Hispanic, and Asian unemployment — while white-clad Democratic women, overwhelmingly white themselves, sat prune-faced.

Trump’s a Russian tool: Withdrawing from the INF Treaty.

Trump’s a warmonger: Without me, Trump says, we’d be at war on the Korean peninsula. Also, I’m looking at pulling out of Afghanistan.

Trump hates women: Except he got even the prune-faced white-clad Democratic women up dancing (and chanting “USA! USA!”) when he talked about record female employment in and out of Congress.

And his rebuke to socialism was designed to strip the glamour that the media have tried to imbue it with by tying it to the abject misery of Venezuela.

In debate, I think this is called cutting across your opponent’s flow. And I think it’s Trump’s opening shot at 2020, as well as an effort to undercut the “Resistance” in and out of Congress. Plus, as Ann Althouse notes, despite the predictions of lefties like Robert Reich (see below) it was all wrapped in optimism and sunny American exceptionalism. Genuinely Reaganesque.

And, of course, the sour, shallow responses from the lefty apparat just underscore that:

But outside the apparat, it played well even with a lot of people who didn’t vote for Trump:

Ouch, indeed:

UPDATE: I remember when Robert Costa was supposed to be a conservative:

ROBERT REICH, ONE DAY BEFORE #SOTU: Democrats must not give in to Trump’s hateful speech. “Trump discussing the state of the union is like pyromaniac discussing lighter fluids. His goal is, and has always been, disunion. The man thrives on divisiveness. It’s how he keeps himself the center of attention, fuels his base and ensures that no matter what facts are revealed, his followers will stick by him. There’s another reason Trump aims to divide – and why he pours salt into the nation’s deepest wounds over ethnicity, immigration, race and gender.”

Most columns have a short shelf life, but this one aged faster than a fruit fly.

YOU MIGHT NOT BE INTERESTED IN THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG, BUT THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG IS INTERESTED IN YOU: Anti-Gun Democrat’s Purchase Of ‘Meateater’ Could Pose Big Problems For Hunter-Focused Company.

Meatater, a popular hunter-focused entertainment company started by outdoorsman and writer Steven Rinella, was purchased by a rabidly anti-gun Democrat financier late last year in a move that has raised alarms among hunters and gun-rights activists. The Chernin Group, a California-based investment fund run by wealthy Democratic activist and Hollywood producer Peter Chernin, purchased a controlling stake in Rinella’s Meateater in 2018.

The left-wing, anti-gun political activism of Meateater’s largest investor, as well as political commentary and activity from some of its key partners and sponsors, complicates the company’s expansion plans given that such a large percentage of hunters in the United States — who comprise Meateater’s core audience — staunchly support both gun rights and Republican political candidates. Chernin’s company announced the investment in Meateater and its hiring of a new CEO for the company via a press release last October.

Chernin, who has donated nearly $500,000 to Democratic candidates and causes since 2015, has repeatedly attacked gun rights and Second Amendment activists over the last year. He retweeted comedian Michael Ian Black’s attack on the National Rifle Association as a “terrorist organization” and a separate Hollywood personality’s attempt to force FedEx and Visa to sever their ties with the NRA.

Much more at the link.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE, EVEN THE AGGIES HAVE SUCCUMBED EDITION: Texas A&M English prof candidates better have a ‘feminist’ or ‘queer’ ‘agenda.’ The Gleichschaltung gets around.


YOU MAY NOT CARE ABOUT THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG, BUT THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG CARES ABOUT YOU: Petition launched to remove law professor for “discriminatory” comments.

A petition to remove Emeritus Professor of Law and Legal Philosophy John Finnis from teaching has attracted three hundred and fifty signatures in five days. Finnis has been accused of having “a long record of extremely discriminatory views against many groups of disadvantaged people”, including the LGBTQ community. Finnis co-teaches a series of seminars for postgraduate students who choose to take the jurisprudence and political theory course in the BCL or M.Jur degree. . . .

Professor Finnis told The Oxford Student that “The petition travesties my position, and my testimony in American constitutional litigation. Anyone who consults the Law Faculty website and follows the links in the petition can see the petition’s many errors. I stand by all these writings. There is not a ‘phobic’ sentence in them. The 1994 essay promotes a classical and strictly philosophical moral critique of all non-marital sex acts and has been republished many times, most recently by Oxford University Press in the third volume of my Collected Essays.”

The petition calls for Finnis to be removed from teaching on the grounds that “university is a place to focus on education, not to be forced to campaign against or to be taught by professors who have promoted hatred towards students that they teach.”

“A place to focus on education.” If it were that, the authorities would require every student who signed the petition to submit a 3000 word essay on the Areopagitica before being allowed to return to class.

YOU MIGHT NOT BE INTERESTED IN THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG, BUT THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG IS INTERESTED IN YOU: Red Lobster will no longer advertise on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show after he made controversial comments about women’s pay and immigrants.

BLESS HIS HEART: Andrew Sullivan Still Misses The Anointed One. Bruce Bawer spots Andrew’s latest dalliance with Godwin’s Law:

As he often does in his New York column, Andrew moved on from Trump to other topics. At the end, he mentioned the recent film Darkest Hour, about the five days in May 1940 that ended with Winston Churchill, the newly installed prime minister, refusing any accommodation with Hitler and giving the famous “blood, toil, tears, and sweat” speech in which he vowed to fight the Nazis “by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us.” Andrew says that the film brought him to tears, because it shows “how the people of Britain shook off the moral decadence of the foreign policy of the 1930s, how, beneath the surface, there were depths of feeling and determination that we never saw until an existential crisis hit, and an extraordinary figure seized the moment.” I foolishly thought, for a moment, that Andrew was then going to turn to Britain today, where members of UKIP and Anne Marie Waters’s For Britain and the followers of Tommy Robinson are shaking off the moral decadence of their leaders’ immigration policies and standing up against the Islamization of their country. Of course I was wrong: for Andrew, the film was a tear-jerker because:

I yearn for something like that to reappear in America. The toll of Trump is so deep. In so many ways, he has come close to delegitimizing this country and entire West, aroused the worst instincts within us, fed fear rather than confronting it, and has been rewarded for his depravity in the most depressing way by everything that is foul on the right and nothing that is noble.

I want to believe in America again, its decency and freedom, its hostility, bred in its bones, toward tyranny of any kind, its kindness and generosity. I need what someone once called the audacity of hope. I’ve witnessed this America ever since I arrived — especially its embrace of immigrants — which is why it is hard to see Trump tearing migrant children from their parents. That America is still out there, I tell myself, as the midterms demonstrated. It can build. But who, one wonders, is our Churchill? And when will he or she emerge?

There it is, amid all the familiar calumnies about Trump feeding fear and tearing children from parents: “what someone once called the audacity of hope.” Andrew is referring, of course, to Obama, whose second book carried that title.

But in 2007, Andrew wrote a blog post headlined “The Weimar President,” during the DNC-MSM’s non-stop Reductio ad Hitlerum in the last years of Dubya’s presidency. As I wrote at the time:

I can only guess that Andrew believes that President Bush is an elderly figurehead leading a weakened but relatively benign quasi-socialist administration suffering the ravages of hyper-inflation and that Hillary, Obama or whoever his successor is, is the next Hitler, about to install a terribly malevolent war machine and concurrent massive welfare state?

So from Andrew’s reckoning, isn’t Trump more akin to Konrad Adenauer? Funny how it’s always the second, and now third coming of the Third Reich, whenever there’s a Republican in office, according to the conservative’s conservative.

CHAD FELIX GREENE: The Stigma Against My Conservative Politics Is Worse Than The Stigma Of Being Gay. “Everything I was told to fear about being openly gay has become a reality in being openly conservative.”

Today I look out across the turbulent sea of political discourse and ask, “Why would anyone choose to be a conservative?” To be a conservative means to openly invite others’ hatred into your life and to lose your humanity in the eyes of strangers who view you exclusively through stereotypes and prejudices.

To be a conservative means to be forced to choose when to speak and when to remain silent, since offending someone on the left, even mildly or by accident, is a social battle you may not be able to win. To be a conservative means carefully regulating your speech and constructing opinions in such a way as to avoid being banned from the public square. To be a conservative means to be a marginalized voice, suppressed and dehumanized; bullied into hesitating to speak out.

You might not be interested in the Gleichschaltung, but the Gleichschaltung is interested in you — and conservatives are by and large uninterested in the Gleichschaltung.

“THE HILLS ARE ALIVE…WITH THE SOUND OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: Nazi props were temporarily declared verboten in LaGuardia High School’s production of the Third Reich-set classic ‘The Sound of Music’ prior to the show’s Thursday night opening. The principal at the elite ‘Fame’ school, Lisa Mars, ordered Nazi flags and symbols removed from the stage set of the beloved tale of the Von Trapp family, who fled the Nazis from their native Austria as Adolf Hitler took power, students told the Daily News.”

Wow, wait until they cover The Producers…

ANALYSIS: TRUE. Everything You Need To Know About Winning A Thanksgiving Argument. “Don’t start one. That’s how you win.”

Pass the gravy, and pass on the Gleichschaltung.


● Shot: Jane Fonda Talks Threats to Democracy, Compares Trump to Hitler.

The Hollywood Reporter, yesterday.

● Chaser: “I want to publicly accuse Nixon here of being a new-type Hitler whose crimes are being unveiled.”

—From Fonda’s lengthy profile at Discover the Networks.

● Hangover: “A new biography of Jane Fonda by Patricia Bosworth reveals a lifelong lament by the famous actress: ‘My biggest regret’ Fonda is quoted during a ‘feminist consciousness-raising session,’ according to the book’s account, ‘is I never got to f*** Che Guevara.’”

—“Jane Fonda’s Crush on Che Guevara,” Humberto Fontova, Townhall, September 7, 2011.

UPDATE: “The Grace and Frankie star added that ‘civility’ is also under attack. ‘And we don’t have to take it anymore. Voting is the way to stop it. Everybody has to vote.’ That’s right. The woman who just compared President Trump to Hitler says civility is under attack. You can’t make this stuff up. Nothing says civility like inserting Hitler into a conversation about a person of a different political philosophy, right? Ugh. Irony is dead in 2018.”

CATCHING UP WITH THE SCIENCE: America’s Changing Attitudes About Fat: Fat Phobia In Decline.

Related: Sloppy science bears substantial blame for Americans’ bad eating habits. “A spectacular case of sloppy science came crashing to a close last month. Cornell University’s Brian Wansink, a world-renowned scientist who seized headlines with his research on American eating habits, had many of his papers retracted and resigned from his professorship. Wansink’s fall is not just the tale of a single scientist gone astray. It is, instead, an indictment of an entire type of nutrition science that has led to mistaken dietary advice dispensed to Americans for decades. . . . Defenders of the current guidelines’ argue that the urgency of our obesity and diabetes epidemics virtually demands that we march forward with recommendations based even on imperfect data. Yet mistakes of the past, such as the now-jettisoned caps on dietary cholesterol and total fat, show the real harm of rushing to create policy based on weak science. Most people still don’t even know about these reversals in our dietary guidelines — that the weight of evidence has now shifted to sugars and refined carbohydrates as the more likely dietary culprits. However, un-learning diet rules once they have been learned proves to be extremely difficult.”

Related: New Research Confirms We Got Cholesterol All Wrong: The U.S. government has pushed a lot of bad nutrition advice over the years. Maybe it should stop advising us on what to eat.


IN THE MAIL: From Frank Hauser and Russell Reich, Notes on Directing: 130 Lessons in Leadership from the Director’s Chair.

Plus, Gold Box and Lightning Deals.

JUST NBC THE INSANITY! MSNBC Panelist Says GOP Has Set Themselves Up for ‘A Thousand-Year Reich’ With Kavanaugh Appointment.

NEVER WAS ANYTHING SO INAPPROPRIATELY NAMED, INCLUDING MY CLASSMATE GRACE WHO COULD TRIP ON BOTH FEET WHILE STANDING STILL:  Bonfire of the Lefties: Robert Reich mobilizes MoveOn’s anti-Kavanaugh mob to descend on Washington.

“SHUT UP,” THEY EXPLAINED: A New Color of Censorship from the SPLC.

“Bloodmoney,” Color of Change’s smear campaign, seeks to shut down the fundraising abilities of conservative organizations by pressuring credit card companies and payment processors to deny access to conservative groups blacklisted by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Color of Change falsely accuses all of these groups of promoting violence and white supremacy.

Two weeks ago, the group’s pressure campaign successfully misled Mastercard into refusing to process donations for the Freedom Center, until an outcry forced the company to change course. Though the battle may have been won, Color of Change’s censorship campaign continues.

Color of Change’s “Bloodmoney” campaign is a blood libel. The effort falsely links conservative organizations targeted by the SPLC—including some run by African-Americans and Jews—to the Charleston church shooting and the violence in Charlottesville. The leftist group founded by CNN’s Van Jones and funded by George Soros is out to censor conservative organizations by choking off their fundraising.

The Gleichschaltung has arrived whether you care to recognize it or not.

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): This sounds perilously like a conspiracy to interfere with the exercise of civil rights, which — as the SPLC should know — is both a crime and a cause for civil liability.

CHRISTIAN TOTO: Why Hollywood’s Silence on Free Speech Matters. “Bill Maher is all alone. Again.”


How many stars held their nose and said the Alex Jones of the world deserve to have a voice, too? Chelsea Handler, Billy Eichner, George Takei and Debra Messing did just the opposite, cheering on Jones’ dismissal via their Twitter accounts.

That, Maher said, is simply wrong.

“If you’re a liberal, you’re supposed to be for free speech. That’s free speech for the speech you hate. That’s what free speech means. We’re losing the thread of the concepts that are important to this country. If you care about the real American s*** or you don’t. And if you do, it goes for every side. I don’t like Alex Jones, but Alex Jones gets to speak. Everybody gets to speak.”

He’s right, of course.

Jones isn’t part of the privileged class, and what fun is privilege if it doesn’t mean denying others the things you enjoy the most?


It’s well known that many banks are reluctant to open accounts for marijuana businesses out of fear of running afoul of the U.S’s government’s continued criminalization of the drug.

But one major institution just took the financial services industry’s cannabis cash paranoia a step further, saying—in what appears to be a first—that it won’t do business with a political candidate because she has received donations from cannabis industry interests.

Wells Fargo, the fourth-largest bank in the U.S., fired Florida agriculture commissioner candidate Nikki Fried as a client this month because her campaign has received donations from “lobbyists from the medical marijuana industry,” according to copies of emails her campaign made public on Monday.

Banks policing who candidates may or may not receive donations from is not a road we want to go down.

ROBERT REICH: How Trump’s War on Regulation Is Trickle-Down Economics.

As if either one of those is a bad thing.

BUZZKILL: The mayor of Somerville says he’s never again drinking Sam Adams beer after company founder met with President Donald Trump.

“I like beer” used to be one of the few things a vast majority of Americans could agree on without it getting political. But as Ed likes to say, you might not be interested in the Gleichschaltung, but the Gleichschaltung is interested in you.

SPENGLER: Pope Francis Is Woefully Wrong about the Death Penalty.

The ancient rabbinic view is close to that of St. John Paul II in the 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae. He argued that the death penalty should be “very rare and practically non-existent.” But there is a great gulf fixed between “very rare and practically non-existent,” and the complete abolition of the death penalty, as Pope Francis now teaches. The abolition of the death penalty in principle would in my view weaken the foundation of all states, and most emphatically that of the best of states. It would do irreparable harm to the legitimacy of modern states, an elusive issue that is set in clear relief by the issue of the death penalty.

Consider an extreme example. The State of Israel has executed just one criminal since its founding in 1948, namely Adolf Eichmann, whose crimes surpass the human capacity to absorb horror and whose life was an affront to God as well as man. Israel now confines in prison Arab terrorists who willfully murdered young children and old people, but has never executed any of them; whether it should have done so may be debated, but the fact is that Eichmann’s crimes are of an entirely different order than that of a mere bus-bomber or child rapist.

For Israel, Eichmann had to be executed as a matter of raison d’etat. The nation-state of the Jewish people cannot fulfill its purpose if it is unable to rid the world of a monster who organized the systematic murder of millions of Jews.

Read the whole thing.

YOU MIGHT NOT BE INTERESTED IN THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG, BUT THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG IS INTERESTED IN YOU: Advertisers Jump on the SJW Bandwagon, Declare Masculinity Dead. “They’re now working hard to create campaigns to re-educate consumers.”


The first time that many casual observers learned, for example, of the “controversy” involving Scarlett Johansson having been cast to play a transgender character was when she backed out of the production amid an outcry driven by a loud and engaged minority. We have skipped over the part where the aggrieved are kind enough to explain their grievance to the general public—in this case, why it is suddenly inappropriate for a performer to play a role outside his or her demographic. From software engineers with conservative views about same-sex marriage and gender roles to liberal actors (and those who come to their defense) who find occasion to praise conservatives, those who would deter transgressions against transient liberal dogma are upping the ante. Democrats cannot embrace the Hollywood left, appearing alongside actors at rallies and feeding lines to late-night hosts, and expect to avoid association with its most indelicate elements.

Democrats can take heart in the fact that none of this seems likely to overtake their advantages ahead of Donald Trump’s first midterm election. Voters hate one-party government, and they appear set to punish the GOP even though they are voting for a party they admit has lost touch with mainstream America. That’s cold comfort. A Democratic wave in November will propel to Congress a new cast of liberals who are beholden to ideological rigidity and constituencies that will punish aisle-crossing. Those who lament the decline of civil discourse and compromise in Washington haven’t seen anything yet.

 Related: The Public Humiliation Diet.

(Classical reference in headline.)


“Celebrate diversity” morphed into “Conform, Prole” so slowly that I hardly even noticed.

EVERGREEN: Democrats Need To Get A Grip On Reality. “This week Politico published an opinion piece headlined: “Putin’s Attack on the U.S. Is Our Pearl Harbor,” which demeaned the sacrifice of American soldiers by likening a military attack on American soil that brought us into the bloodiest war mankind has ever experienced to email phishing.”

More from David Harsanyi:

On MSNBC, where illiterate histrionic analogies litter coverage every day, a contributor compared Donald Trump’s meeting in Helsinki with Vladimir Putin to Pearl Harbor and Kristallnacht, just to be safe.

Social media is teeming with similar hyperbole — “treason,” “traitor,” etc . — and not just from anonymous trolls. It’s difficult to accept anyone with a working brain actually believes this rhetoric, and they certainly don’t act like it. But if well-heeled pundits keep telling everyone The Fourth Reich is imminent before retiring to their townhouses in Capitol Hill every night, some people might actually start believing them. And if email phishing and hacking is truly comparable to Pearl Harbor or Kristallnacht or the Holocaust there’s really no reason why those accepting these analogies shouldn’t also support military reprisals abroad and coups at home.

All the Democrats have to do is not act crazy, and… you know the rest.

CHANGE: Under New Management: Trump’s ‘fresh eyes’ sparks massive federal reform.

President Trump is taking charge of his administration’s effort to reform the federal government and workforce, the biggest demonstration yet that Washington is under new management.

Aides describe the president as personally invested in the 32-point plan to shake the bureaucracy out of a 1950s model based on secretarial pools.

“So much of the ability to drive change requires a fresh perspective,” said Margaret Weichert, an author of the recently announced reform blueprint and deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget. . . .

Trimming and reeducating the workforce, combining federal agencies and eliminating overlapping services won’t be easy and Trump’s team are bracing for a bruising fight with bureaucrats, federal employee unions and lawmakers.

But it is one that Trump is approaching like he did many of his business challenges, setting the overall goals and then promoting them.

“He gets involved in the high level conceptual framing of it and then when we pull together the proposals,” said Weichert.

One business practice used in drawing up the reform plan was keeping the proposals broad and welcoming outside ideas, she said.

“Very often good ideas literally die in committee because if you have a single proposal the people who are invested in the status quo start picking at it, and picking at it and picking at it and then what’s left isn’t even worth pursuing,” Weichert explained.

Another tactic is selling it, and that means describing how poorly the current federal structure works. She and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney, for example, are armed with silly stories of how Washington works, such as how chickens are regulated by the Agriculture Department, but eggs by the Food and Drug Administration, or how salmon are regulated differently if they are in the ocean or river.

“We are serious about top down change. It cannot all happen at once, it can’t certainly happen by fiat, but when you look at where we are at in 2018 two decades into the 21st century and you pair that with a bureaucratic infrastructure that was very well aligned to the needs of the post-World War II era, it’s so clear there’s a mismatch,” said Weichert, adding, “If now isn’t the time to get traction on this, I don’t know when is. We have to get serious about making change happen.”

Legislation has already been introduced to begin making Trump’s reforms, headlined by a plan to revamp the federal workforce, reform IT and add automation, and combine the Education and Labor departments so that schools can focus more on filling the nation’s skills gap like some European school systems do.

There are a lot of areas where Trump could campaign on making America “more like Europe” and confuse the Dems.

THERE’S THAT WORD “UNHINGED” AGAIN: The left’s increasingly unhinged portrayal of Trump as a dictator.

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden notoriously and unapologetically tweeted a photo of Auschwitz-Birkenau as a response to family separations at the border. Upon a report that parents at the border were being told that their children were being taken to get bathed and disappearing, Chris Hayes of MSNBC tweeted, “What does this remind you of?” Soledad O’Brien chimed in, “Welp, I guess we’ve put to rest the question: ‘Nazi Germany: Could it happen here in America?’ ”

Progressives imagine that they are protecting our system when making these and related charges, but they are really losing faith in it themselves and undermining its legitimacy.

Kumail Nanjiani, a comedian and actor with more than 2 million followers on Twitter, objected to President Trump’s contention that illegal immigration brings criminals into the United States. He said Hitler “focused on crimes by Jews,” and this is what brought on Nazi Germany over time.

Actually, Hitler was named chancellor in January 1933 and immediately acted to curtail press and individual rights and begin repressing the Jews. He used the Reichstag fire to mobilize against opponents, including through violence, and gained full dictatorial powers via the Enabling Act in March 1933.

By comparison, Trump in his first year and a half in office has tweeted, called the press names and — yes — highlighted crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Unpresidential? Yes. Disturbing? At times. Fascistic? No.

To today’s Left, “fascistic” means “anything standing in the way of my authoritarian impulses.”

COMING NEXT: WOKE PEDERASTY. “If you don’t want the Third Reich, don’t welcome the Weimar Republic.”

True, but Weimar America arrived long ago, and preventing it (if even possible), would have involved those who brought it to you stopping to ask along the way, “Are we the baddies?”

FROM BAUHAUS TO BIRDHOUSES: Modernist Birdhouses Inspired by Bauhaus, Frank Lloyd Wright and Joseph Eichler.

(Classical allusion in headline.)

YOU KNOW THAT’S NOT ALLOWED: George Mason Law School Is Under Attack For Being Successful And Different.

Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University has a very highly cited faculty, showing that it has a relatively large impact on the world of legal ideas. It is ranked as the 21st, just after the University of Texas. This ranking is an extraordinary achievement, given that it was a young school with a small endowment, not at all comparable to long established schools like Texas. As is clear from objective data, Antonin Scalia Law School’s faculty is also unusual in having a faculty that it is right of center in a profession where every school with a higher citation count is left of center, sometimes far to the left of center. For instance, schools in the top twenty citations regularly have less than ten percent conservatives and frequently less than five percent.

This is the context of the large recent gifts to the law school, a context that makes nonsense of the idea in a recent New York Times article that conservatives are trying to buy influence over its hiring or anything else. The reporters have the causation exactly backwards. The gift is not designed to elicit conservative thought from the school. Instead the school’s thoughtful conservatism elicited the gift. Those who support liberty, as defined in classical liberalism, want to help an effective institution that does not currently follow the academic orthodoxy arrayed against it. What a surprise!

Anyone who is interested in more diversity of views in the legal academy should also applaud this gift. Indeed, anyone who wants more high impact scholarship should be happy. Given how well George Mason has done with little money, increasing its endowment is likely to do much more at the margin than giving to most other schools.

And the insinuations in the article that there is something wrong with an official of the Federalist Society trying to help land a gift is silly. Charitable donations often occur through networks. Nor is it shocking that someone at the Federalist Society recommends a candidate for a faculty position. Recommendations come in from many quarters. The notion that Antonin Scalia Law School faculty will not hire on the merits is refuted by its extensive track record. The scholars hired there have been far more productive than at all but elite schools with far more resources than George Mason.

It would be charitable to attribute the approach of this article to the reporters’ ignorance of the legal academy, its ideology, and its practices. But another possibility is that it reflects the mindset of the New York Times, composed almost entirely of left-liberals, to entrench left-liberal orthodoxy in realms other than the mainstream media.

You may not be interested in the gleichschaltung, but the gleichschaltung is interested in you.

NIALL FERGUSON: An ancient trap awaits China and US.

Historians often look back to the events of the 1890s and 1900s in an effort to trace the origins of the Anglo-German antagonism. The long-established narrative goes something like this: The German economy was overtaking the British economy, a trend summed up in the words “Made in Germany” that were stamped on a rising proportion of imported manufactures.

Germany had imperial ambitions, too, acquiring colonies in Asia and Africa. And it was building a fleet that was obviously intended to rival the Royal Navy.

Increasingly, as their economy boomed, the Germans argued that their political system — in which the parliament (the Reichstag) had much less power than its British equivalent, and the monarch much more power — was intrinsically superior. Their material successes bolstered an already deep-rooted nationalism.

The ultimate result was that Britain and Germany followed the ancient example of Sparta and Athens: the incumbent power and the rising power ended up going to war. The Harvard political scientist Graham Allison calls it the “Thucydides trap,” after the historian of the Peloponnesian War.

Are the United States and China on the way to repeating this classic historical mistake? Having just spent a fascinating week in Beijing and Shanghai, I fear they may be.

Read the whole thing.

OH: Turns Out That New York Times’ Clinton Email ‘Botched Story’ Actually Wasn’t.

The Clinton campaign, which requested the corrections in the first place, seized on those small inconsistencies and attempted to use them to discredit the entire story. The campaign wrote a nearly 2,000-word public letter to the Times demanding an explanation for the “egregious” story and attacking the paper’s “apparent abandonment of standard journalistic practices.”

Liberal media outlets were more than happy to join in the pile-on. Newsweek‘s Kurt Eichenwald declared the Times guilty of “a level of recklessness that borders on, well, criminal behavior.” The Atlantic called the “botched story” a “huge embarrassment” for the paper. Salon.com declared it “another shoddy Clinton smear.” Mother Jones wrote that it was an “epic screw-up.”

But former FBI director James Comey’s new book indicates that the ridiculous semantics game was even more moot than it appeared. The Times actually understated the reality: Clinton was already under criminal investigation at the time by the FBI, and yes, she was definitely the target.

“Though The Times may have thought those clarifications were necessary, their original story was much closer to the mark,” Comey writes. “It was true that the transmission to the F.B.I. from the inspector general did not use the word ‘criminal,’ but by the time of the news story, we had a full criminal investigation open, focused on the secretary’s conduct.”

Read the whole thing.

YOU MAY NOT BE INTERESTED IN THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG, BUT THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG IS INTERESTED IN YOUR DOCTOR: Why should we care about the opinions of aspiring doctors? “In 2015, the Association of American Medical Colleges revised the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) for the first time in nearly 25 years, stretching the full exam-day experience from around five hours to eight or more. The test drew attention at the time for its sheer length; less widely noted was the explicitly ideological bent of the new exam.”

BLUE WAVE? Paul Ryan-Linked PAC Sets Up Shop in Toss-Up Washington District Held by Republicans for Decades.

Washington’s 8th congressional district, which is located in the suburbs of Seattle and boasts a population of nearly 700,000 residents, is now up for grabs after Rep. Dave Reichert (R.) said he will not seek reelection. Reichert, who announced his retirement shortly after turning 67, has represented the district since 2004.

Reichert found a way to comfortably win the district even as it has swung to Democratic presidential candidates. The seven-term congressman defeated his opponent, Democrat Tony Ventrella, by nearly 21 points during the 2016 elections despite Hillary Clinton garnering 3 percent more of the vote than President Donald Trump. George H.W. Bush was the most recent Republican presidential candidate to carry the district, in 1988.

Republicans, however, have held the seat on the congressional level since the district’s creation in 1980.

Democrats only need to flip 24 seats to win back the House of Representatives and now sense an opportunity to topple Republicans at the congressional level in the 8th for the first time. Eleven Democrats entered the primary—eight remain—and the Nancy Pelosi-affiliated House Majority PAC has already purchased airtime in the district.

As Glenn has been saying for a while now: If you want to make a difference, spend less time on the internet and more time volunteering for a local campaign.

MICHAEL BARONE: How genetic science is undercutting the case for racial quotas.

Reich obviously wishes to avoid the demonization endured by Murray, who was attacked by a mob at Middlebury College just last year. He is careful indeed to make clear that his findings should not be used to justify racist practices like the slave trade, the eugenics movement, and the Holocaust.

Reich also makes a point that is obvious to the ordinary person but which he — along with some of his critics who wrote to the Times — thinks needs reiteration. Which is, as one puts it, “differences in individuals vary far more widely than in populations.” When we are comparing traits of people with different genetic ancestry, we are looking at averages, like the differences between American whites’ and Asians’ IQ scores (Asians’ on average are higher). But within the white and Asian populations there is wide variety — which can be represented as an actual bell curve.

The assumption of “well-meaning people” is that ordinary Americans aren’t capable of grasping this. My view is that they understand it very well. They have learned, from school, from work, from everyday life, from public events, that there is a wider variation within each measured group than between measured groups.

Read the whole thing.


I’m sure you find people in all walks of life who seem a little . . . cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, but I wonder if journalism attracts more than its fair share.

I’m sure you’ve already assembled a long list of Mad Media Men in your head — from news anchors who believe 1970s typewriters could perfectly mimic the default settings of Microsoft Word, to the fabulists who told tall tales and expected to forever escape the consequences, to the ones caught in hot-microphone tirades and tantrums, to the one that suddenly blurted out claims that the Jews control the media.

Nonsense. Leading Democratic politicians have assured me that they simply control the weather.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, TWINKLETOES: Arthur Murray (born Moses Teichman) would have been 123 years old today. Among his students were Eleanor Roosevelt, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Johnny Mercer and Jack Dempsey.  If you can bring one-tenth as much happiness to your fellow man as Murray and his chain of dancing schools have brought, you will have been a smashing success.


DISPATCHES FROM DEEP WITHIN THE TENTACLES OF THE MSM: Kurt Eichenwald Emails Ben Shapiro . . . And It’s Wild.

And it gets worse: Here Are The Direct Messages Between Parkland Student Kyle Kashuv And Eichenwald.

As Benny Johnson of the Daily Caller tweets, “Eichenwald carried on a very long, bizarre DM conversation with [Kashuv] and regularly referred to himself as a victim in the entire situation.”

ANDREW SULLIVAN: Denying Genetics Isn’t Shutting Down Racism, It’s Fueling It.

Last weekend, a rather seismic op-ed appeared in the New York Times, and it was for a while one of the most popular pieces in the newspaper. It’s by David Reich, a professor of genetics at Harvard, who carefully advanced the case that there are genetic variations between subpopulations of humans, that these are caused, as in every other species, by natural selection, and that some of these variations are not entirely superficial and do indeed overlap with our idea of race. This argument should not be so controversial — every species is subject to these variations — and yet it is. For many on the academic and journalistic left, genetics are deemed largely irrelevant when it comes to humans. Our large brains and the societies we have constructed with them, many argue, swamp almost all genetic influences.

Humans, in this view, are the only species on Earth largely unaffected by recent (or ancient) evolution, the only species where, for example, the natural division of labor between male and female has no salience at all, the only species, in fact, where natural variations are almost entirely social constructions, subject to reinvention. We are, in this worldview, alone on the planet, born as blank slates, to be written on solely by culture. All differences between men and women are a function of this social effect; as are all differences between the races. If, in the aggregate, any differences in outcome between groups emerge, it is entirely because of oppression, patriarchy, white supremacy, etc. And it is a matter of great urgency that we use whatever power we have to combat these inequalities.

Reich simply points out that this utopian fiction is in danger of collapse because it is not true and because genetic research is increasingly proving it untrue.

“Party of Science.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Two professors have written a new book warning of a trend they call “toxic geek masculinity,” which they see evidenced in television shows such as “The Big Bang Theory.”

You may not be interested in the gleichschaltung, but the gleichschaltung is interested in you.

ANDREW SULLIVAN: Denying Genetics Isn’t Shutting Down Racism, It’s Fueling It.

Reich simply points out that this utopian fiction is in danger of collapse because it is not true and because genetic research is increasingly proving it untrue. On the male-female divide, for example, Reich cites profound differences, “reflecting more than 100 million years of evolution and adaptation.” On race, he is both agnostic about what we will eventually find out with respect to the scale of genetic differences, and also insistent that genetic differences do exist: “You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work.” Which means to say that the differences could be (and actually are) substantial.

This will lead to subtle variations in human brains, and thereby differences in intelligence tests, which will affect social and economic outcomes in the aggregate in a multiracial, capitalist, post-industrial society. The danger in actively suppressing and stigmatizing this inconvenient truth, he maintains, is that a responsible treatment of these genetic influences will be siloed in the academic field of genetics, will be rendered too toxic for public debate, and will thereby only leak out to people in the outside world via the worst kind of racists and bigots who will distort these truths to their own ends. If you don’t establish a reasonable forum for debate on this, Reich argues, if you don’t establish the principle is that we do not have to be afraid of any of this, it will be monopolized by truly unreasonable and indeed dangerous racists. And those racists will have the added prestige for their followers of revealing forbidden knowledge. And so there are two arguments against the suppression of this truth and the stigmatization of its defenders: that it’s intellectually dishonest and politically counterproductive.

I felt a genuine relief reading the op-ed because it was so nuanced and so low-temperature.

Many people, of course, have a vested interest in fueling racism.


Did you hear? They’re talking about repealing the Second Amendment. It started with former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley. And it sure does seem like those calls prompted skeptics of American gun culture to echo their remarks. Turley and Stevens were joined this week by op-ed writers in the pages of Esquire and the Seattle Times. Democratic candidates for federal office have even enlisted in the ranks of those calling for an amendment to curtail the freedoms in the Bill of Rights. Of course, this is just the most mainstream invocation of anti-Second Amendment themes that have been expressed unashamedly for years, from liberal activists like Michael Moore to conservative opinion writers at the New York Times.  Those calling for the repeal of the right to bear arms today are only echoing similar calls made years ago in venues ranging from Rolling Stone, MSNBC, and Vanity Fair to the Jesuit publication America Magazine.

Are you sitting down? You might be surprised to learn that none of this occurred. It’s only your vivid or, some might go so far as to say, fevered imagination. Rest assured, CNN host Chris Cuomo insists that “no one” is calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Read the whole thing, which is a reminder that the left has been gaslighting conservatives for quite a long time, as this 2014 video by Bill Whittle illustrates.

YOU MIGHT NOT BE INTERESTED IN THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG, BUT THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG IS INTERESTED IN YOU, PART DEUX: Promoting Socialism Via Corporate America: The New England Patriots loaned its team plane to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students and their families traveling to Washington, D.C., for the #MarchforOurLives rally.

(Classical reference in headline.)

YOU MIGHT NOT BE INTERESTED IN THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG, BUT THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG IS INTERESTED IN YOU: Lyft Commends Gun Control Protesters for Their ‘Bravery and Intelligence.’ “The company offered free rides to the March for Our Lives to show their support.”


● Shot:

Not everyone in Hollywood is happy with the effect that the “Me Too” movement has had on their industry.

Director Terry Gilliam is one of the few men in Hollywood brave enough to speak out against the movement. Make no mistake, he knows Harvey Weinstein “is a monster,” but he believes some of the women who chose to work with him knew what they were getting into. And the mob that’s taken a hold of Hollywood in the wake of their allegations is out of control.

“It’s like when mob rule takes over, the mob is out there they are carrying their torches and they are going to burn down Frankenstein’s castle,” Gilliam told AFP.

—“Director Bashes The Me Too ‘Mob’ That’s Taken Control Of Hollywood,” the Daily Caller, yesterday.

● Chaser:

But it’s what you do while you’re here, and what you should be doing is living hopefully and trying to balance your needs and the needs of the world and the planet, and don’t fuck the place up.  So that’s the problem with the idea that it’s all going to go to rat shit eventually so let’s make as much money as possible.  Those people will always be a fungus and if I was running the country I would take them out and shoot them frankly, but that’s something else [laughs].

—Gilliam discussing the environment with a Website called Collider.com, while promoting his 2014 movie, The Zero Theorem, as quoted in “Terry Gilliam’s Eliminationist Rhetoric,” Ed Driscoll.com, September 24, 2014.

As I wrote at the time, “Gilliam’s dystopian 1985 film Brazil ends with Jonathan Pryce’s protagonist being brutally tortured by Michael Palin’s Speer or Eichmann-esque coolly technocratic statist character. Presumably, Pryce’s character dies at the end of the film or shortly afterwards. Who knew until now Gilliam meant it to be a happy ending and the whole film a how-to guide for big government?”

FROM TERRY LACY: Jackal and the Fifth Reich.

An abducted princess–a kingdom in peril. Jag, Fancy and the crew of Jackal team up with an ancient Earth order to help a friend, save a kingdom, or die trying.

I QUITE ENJOYED THE FIRST BOOK IN THIS SERIES: Now out: Jackal and the Fifth Reich.

BRANDON WEICHERT: Democrats Should Revise Their Hopes for 2018.

There are good reasons for them to expect some gains, but their understanding about what will drive those gains, if there are some, is skewed perfectly to suit their prejudices.

Watching tonight’s speech, I couldn’t help but wonder if the Left had totally checked out of reality and focused solely on their echo chamber. Did they really think that marginally Democrat voters would be impressed with their performance? The majority of elected Congressional Democrats were caught on camera tonight sneering at the concept of average American workers keeping more of their pay, bettering their lives, and overcoming stifling government regulations. They were caught in stone cold silence at the concept of honoring the flag and the ideas it represents.

The Democrats are banking on President Trump’s alleged unpopularity to carry them forward in their 2018 campaigns. However, that is a born-to-lose proposition going forward. Tonight’s speech proved that while the Democrats snigger and sneer at the Right, the Republicans—led by Trump—are actually doing things to demonstrate their sympathy with the American people and producing results that people can applaud. The Democrats are not “woke” if they fail to recognize this fact.

Trump reached across the aisle several times in his address, trusting that the Democrats would play to their worst instincts. His faith was not misplaced.

WEIMAR? BECAUSE WE REICH YOU! Germany’s ‘Babylon Berlin’ Crime Series Is Like ‘Cabaret’ On Cocaine.

It’s quite watchable (read: binge-able), if at times a bit anachronistic; the giant nightclub that many scenes are set in is far more reminiscent of the ’20s-meets-hip-hop production design of Leonardo DiCaprio’s Great Gatsby movie than Bob Fosse’s Cabaret. But the Netflix import is a detective story, not an epistemological history lesson; if you want to understand how German mores and morals hit rock-bottom and set the stage for one of history’s darkest hours, Babylon Berlin won’t do it, but it does make for gripping (if occasionally aesthetically vile) television.

(Classical reference in headline.)

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Feminist Profs: selfies perpetuate classic ‘gender roles.’

A group of feminist professors recently discovered that Instagram selfies taken by women in college can reinforce “traditional gender roles.”

In a study led by Mardi Schmeichel, a University of Georgia (UGA) professor specializing in “feminist theory,” a team of professors analyzed 233 selfies that were posted in 2013 within 24 hours of the first UGA football home game of the semester.

Schmeichel and her team analyzed these selfies to see if they represented “the idealized symbol of the southern lady,” which they note is an aesthetic trope that “has had significant and enduring consequences on notions of femininity in the South.”

This symbol of the southern lady, they argue, is typified by students’ formal wear, soft and flowy dresses, a significant amount of jewelry, and clothes that emphasize “feminine curves without revealing what might be considered ‘too much’ skin.”

Bright red lipstick and white teeth are also considered emblematic of this southern aesthetic, Schmeichel argues.

After analyzing selfies posted in the time surrounding the first 2013 UGA home game, Schmeichel found that 25 percent of women who posted photos embody this harmful aesthetic.

“The clothing, makeup, posing and editing used in the southern lady images work together to achieve a hyperfeminine gender performance that differs significantly from the images of women in the other selfies,” Schmeichel laments.

“In the southern lady images, attention to a traditionally gendered performance has been emphasized,” Schmeichel writes, lamenting that “the southern lady images that circulate in these selfies reinscribe a traditional femininity organized around/on a binary.”

She also notes that students’ embodiment of femininity can be troubling.

“Harmful aesthetic?” That’s deeply insensitive and insulting to these students’ culture. I think the Bias Response Team needs to look into this.

CHRISTOPHER HARPER: Dictionaries as Propaganda Tools.

In a year when Trumpism, fake news, and myriad conservative terms held sway throughout the world, I am trying not to sound conspiratorial. But the dictionaries chose some liberal words to proclaim as the words of 2017. Merriam-Webster chose “feminism.” Dictionary.com went with “complicit,” while the Cambridge Dictionary anointed “populism.” These choices seem troubling, but Oxford Dictionaries went with something else worse: “youthquake.”

I am happy to say I have never heard someone use youthquake, which is defined as a “significant cultural, political, or social change arising from the actions or influence of young people.”

Former Vogue editor Diana Vreeland apparently coined “youthquake” in the 1960s to describe the youth culture of London back then. The word fell out of favor until this year when its use increased dramatically, according to an analysis of the Oxford English Corpus, which collects roughly 150 million words of spoken and written English from various sources.

The use of the word surged first in coverage of the British parliamentary elections in June before spreading to political commentary to the United States and elsewhere.

Youthquake triumphed over a politically leftist list that included “Antifa,” “broflake,” “kompromat,” “white fragility,” and “Milkshake Duck.”

You may not be interested in the Gleichschaltung, but the Gleichschaltung is interested in you.

FASTER, PLEASE: Senate GOP repeals ObamaCare mandate.

We really need to remove its tentacles from across the land.

As Stephen Miller tweets, “Millenials, Kurt is right. Please follow his advice.” Indeed. But where would you advise them to move to, Kurt?

HUFFPO: White House Christmas Decor ‘Spooky,’ Like a Scene from ‘The Shining.’

You might not be interested in the Gleichschaltung, but HuffPo will help make sure the Gleichschaltung is interested in you.

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: in a post titled “Bray New World,” Mark Steyn profiles Mark Bray, the professor who recently wrote Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, and who “passes for the intellectual wing of Antifa.” Steyn writes, “In The Chronicle of Higher Education Nell Gluckman offers a glowing paean to the man she dubs ‘The Button-Down Anarchist:’”

In fact, there’s a point Mr. Bray made in an interview that Mr. Scott often finds himself citing. “We don’t look back at the Weimar Republic today and celebrate them for allowing Nazis to have their free-speech rights,” he says. “We look back and say, Why didn’t they do something?”

Steyn responds:

It is a testament to the wholesale moronization of our culture that there are gazillions of apparently sane people willing to take out six figures of debt they’ll be paying off for decades for the privilege of being “taught” by the likes of Professor Bray. The reason “we don’t look back at the Weimar Republic today and celebrate them for allowing Nazis to have their free-speech rights” is because they didn’t. A decade ago, as my battles with Canada’s “human rights” commissions were beginning, I lost count of the number of bien-pensants insisting that, while in theory we could permit hatemongers like Steyn to exercise their free-speech rights, next thing you know it would be jackboots on the 401. As I said way back when:

“Hateful words” can lead to “unspeakable crimes.” The problem with this line is that it’s ahistorical twaddle, as I’ve pointed out. Yet still it comes up. It did last month, during my testimony to the House of Commons justice committee, when an opposition MP mused on whether it wouldn’t have been better to prohibit the publication of Mein Kampf.

“That analysis sounds as if it ought to be right,” I replied. “But the problem with it is that the Weimar Republic—Germany for the 12 years before the Nazi party came to power—had its own version of Section 13 and equivalent laws. It was very much a kind of proto-Canada in its hate speech laws. The Nazi party had 200 prosecutions brought against it for anti-Semitic speech. At one point the state of Bavaria issued an order banning Hitler from giving public speeches.”

And a fat lot of good it all did.

Or to put it another way:

The problem is, the Weimar Republic had such laws. It used them freely against the Nazis. Far from stopping Hitler, they only made his day when he became Chancellor. They enabled Hitler to confront Social Democratic Party chairman Otto Wels, who stood up in the Reichstag to protest Nazi suspension of civil liberties, with a quotation from the poet Friedrich Schiller:

“‘Late you come, but still you come,'” Hitler pointed at the hapless deputy. “You should have recognized the value of criticism during the years we were in opposition [when] our press was forbidden, our meetings were forbidden, and we were forbidden to speak for years on end.”

As the College Fix noted, in a post Glenn linked to earlier today, “Majority of Americans say colleges aren’t properly teaching ‘the value of free speech.’” And they’re not properly teaching history either. But they are teaching the value of violence: “When Bray recently appeared on Meet the Press, moderator Chuck Todd told him ‘You seem to be a very small minority here who is defending the idea of violence,’ Bray did not deny it.”

I wonder if Bray has ever asked himself or his Antifa buddies, “Are we the baddies?”

Related: Professor who erased pro-life messages will pay $17,000, receive First Amendment training.


Harry Belafonte appeared dazed, struggling to stand with a cane as an aide guided him slowly to his place on stage. Having caught his breath, the 90-year-old singer and civil rights activist warned the crowd at Carnegie Music Hall on Friday night that this was probably his last public appearance.

It lasted nearly two hours. Despite appearing disoriented – a stroke a few years ago took away his inner-ear balance – and taking long breaks to gathers his thoughts, Belafonte brought the crowd to rising cheers and chants.

He also made a startling statement. In electing Donald Trump, he said, “the country made a mistake and I think the next mistake might very well be the gas chamber and what happened to Jews [under] Hitler is not too far from our door.”

— “Harry Belafonte tells crowd at likely last public appearance: ‘We shall overcome,’” the London Guardian, Saturday.

How “startling” can it be, given Belafonte’s many past incendiary political statements, including this cringe-inducing moment:

Entertainer/activist Harry Belafonte has retracted some of the controversial comments he made at a civil rights march in Atlanta regarding Jews working for Hitler, but his retraction may have created even more controversy for the singer.

During an interview with Cybercast News Service at the Aug. 7 march, Belafonte asserted that Adolf Hitler’s regime in Germany included Jews and that African Americans working in the Bush administration should be compared to Jews working for Hitler.

“Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich,” Belafonte said on Saturday. He went on to label African Americans working in the Bush administration as “tyrants.”

On Wednesday, Belafonte told the Jerusalem Post: “I do regret the sentence was not structured more accurately.” He added: “I, too, agree that Jews weren’t ‘high up.'”

— “Belafonte’s Retraction of Remarks on Jews Causes New Flap,” CNS News, July 7th, 2008.


Christian Toto:

There’s an interesting psychological game going on here, and it’s one Hollywood, Inc. might not relish. The more teeth gnashing we see out of both the press and Hollywood, the more reluctant Trump supporters side with him.


Entertainers should entertain. The mainstream media should report the facts, not take sides. Seeing both fail to fulfill their duty makes some citizens sympathetic to both President Trump and his histrionics.

We’re already seeing some of the results of this “choose him or us” playbook. Box office numbers are cratering since Trump took office. The president’s Twitter war against NFL players refusing to respect the National Anthem is turning into a slaughter.

Entertainment is where we go — or at least try to go — to escape the daily grind. Gleichschaltung worked in Nazi Germany because outlets were limited and control was total. Hollywood acts as though that’s the case in 21st Century in America when in fact, entertainment (and information) outlets are virtually unlimited — and most attempts at control result in the Streisand Effect or one of its corollaries.

Hollywood and the mainstream media continue to blur the lines between entertainment and news, and between news and indoctrination — a process which seems to be accelerating even as audiences continue shrinking. Now the process may speed up even more as the Ick Factor becomes undeniable. Harvey Weinstein has shown that not only is Hollywood as bad as we imagined, it might be worse than we could imagine.

Back in its heyday, Fox News proved that you could make big ratings and big money by appealing to audiences outside of the NYC-DC-LA Progressive Axis. When will some smart Hollywood studio rediscover the same thing about blockbuster entertainment?


HMM: Eyes on 2018 as 3rd House Republican Says He’ll Retire.

The decision by Rep. Dave Trott of Michigan followed retirement announcements last week by Reps. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania and Dave Reichert of Washington, three members Democrats planned to try to unseat next year. Though all would have been difficult incumbents to unseat, the districts are likely to be much more competitive for Democrats as open races. Several nonpartisan handicappers immediately switched Trott’s district to a “toss up” after his announcement.

Though the trio of retirements hasn’t invited panic among Republicans, it could be a warning sign of a tough political environment facing GOP lawmakers next year. On average, the party in power tends to lose seats in a president’s first midterm election, and Republicans worry that struggling to accomplish their agenda on Capitol Hill and the tumult of President Trump’s first year leave them vulnerable in 2018.

“It’s clear the political environment is trending away from Republicans; the question is, to what extent?” said GOP consultant Ken Spain, who ran communications for the National Republican Congressional Committee during the 2010 cycle. “The next six months are going to tell the story.”

On the Senate side, even Tennessee Republican Bob Corker is “unsure about running for reelection.”

Perhaps if this Congress were delivering on the promises they made to the constituents who put them in office, they’d be reading the tea leaves differently.

ANARCHY GLEICHSCHALTUNG IN THE UK. UK Speaker: Same-Sex Marriage Won’t Be “Proper” Until Churches Can’t Opt Out:

In a shocking attack on religious freedom and even property rights, the speaker of Britain’s House of Commons argued that the country won’t have “proper equal marriage” until churches are unable to turn away requests to host a same-sex marriage.

“I still feel we’ll only have proper equal marriage when you can bloody well get married in a church if you want to do so, without having to fight the church for the equality that should be your right,” John Bercow, the Commons speaker, declared at a PinkNews reception in July.

He’s starting his crackdown on religion with mosques first, I’m sure.


IT’S LIKE HUMAN HISTORY, REWRITTEN BY ROBERT E. HOWARD, to quote a Facebook friend. Deeper Than Deep: David Reich’s genetics lab unveils our prehistoric past.

This is not “ancient history,” which goes back a few thousand years to the dawn of writing. This is deeper in the past than “deep history,” which takes us even further back—before the invention of agriculture, before the invention of language, before the invention of the wheel.

This is deep, deep history, tens of thousands of years ago. When, it’s now emerging, hordes of humans, vast tribes of variations of hominids—Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, the newly discovered “Denisovans,” the mysterious “ghost populations”—ranged and thronged and clashed and bred and interbred (and probably exterminated large portions of each other) across vast landscapes that were battlefields and graveyards.

It’s deep, deep history that’s beginning to unscroll a vast pageant through the wonders of big data crunching and the analysis of ancient DNA samples from fragments of bone and mummies that have been rotting away in the dusty basements of museums.

And we’re just starting, though I hope the results are more reliable than Ancestry.com.

THE HILL: Left-wing assassination fantasies spill over into real violence.

“I hope Trump is assassinated!” soon-to-be former State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal wrote on Facebook.

She is now being investigated by the Secret Service. Even some Democrats are calling for the lawmaker to resign. Unfortunately, her remarks are just the tip of the left-wing meltdown that is turning into real and worsening violence.

Don’t believe me? Then you haven’t been paying close enough attention.

Police indicted more than 200 rioters from the violent protests surrounding President Trump’s inauguration. The riots injured six police officers and caused millions of dollars of damage. Some of the protesters face felony charges and covered their faces to hide their identities. Good ideas flourish in the sunlight. You don’t need a black mask if you have a point.

We’re dealing with cowards that deserve our scorn, not World War II vets who defeated the Third Reich.

I don’t think that “I hope Trump is assassinated” counts as a true threat, or a crime. But it’s certainly an “extremist” sentiment, and we’re supposed to be okay with violence against extremists now, right? At least I think so. Things are kind of confusing on that front. . . .

THE LIBERAL CRACKUP: It’s a shame that Mark Lilla’s brilliant article, adopted from his book, The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics, (scheduled for release this Tuesday) is behind the Wall Street Journal’s subscriber login, because the left-leaning professor of the humanities at Columbia University makes some extremely timely points. Not least of which is this:

There is a mystery at the core of every suicide, and the story of how a once-successful liberal politics of solidarity became a failed liberal politics of “difference” is not a simple one. Perhaps the best place to begin it is with a slogan: The personal is the political.

This phrase was coined by feminists in the 1960s and captured perfectly the mind-set of the New Left at the time. Originally, it was interpreted to mean that everything that seems strictly private—sexuality, the family, the workplace—is in fact political and that there are no spheres of life exempt from the struggle for power. That is what made it so radical, electrifying sympathizers and disturbing everyone else.

But the phrase could also be taken in a more romantic sense: that what we think of as political action is in fact nothing but personal activity, an expression of me and how I define myself. As we would put it today, my political life is a reflection of my identity.

* * * * * * * * *

As a teacher, I am increasingly struck by a difference between my conservative and progressive students. Contrary to the stereotype, the conservatives are far more likely to connect their engagements to a set of political ideas and principles. Young people on the left are much more inclined to say that they are engaged in politics as an X, concerned about other Xs and those issues touching on X-ness. And they are less and less comfortable with debate.

Over the past decade a new, and very revealing, locution has drifted from our universities into the media mainstream: Speaking as an X…This is not an anodyne phrase. It sets up a wall against any questions that come from a non-X perspective. Classroom conversations that once might have begun, I think A, and here is my argument, now take the form, Speaking as an X, I am offended that you claim B. What replaces argument, then, are taboos against unfamiliar ideas and contrary opinions.

Which is how you get Brendan Eich shoved out of Firefox, James Damore crucified by Google, and conservative cake bakers and pizzeria owners threatened by the left. And it’s also how you get this pair of incidents at the left’s Netroots Nation convention this weekend. First up, Jazz Shaw of Hot Air has a “Video [of] Democrats shouting down the “wrong sort” of Democrats at NN17,” to which he adds:

One of the incidents this week deserves at least a brief look however, since it speaks volumes about the current state of the Democratic Party and the schism currently taking place there. One of the scheduled speakers at the event was Stacey Evans, a member of the Georgia House of Representatives and a candidate in the Democratic primary race for Governor of that state. It’s important to say that Ms. Evans was a scheduled speaker, because she didn’t get the chance to do very much actual speaking.

* * * * * * * * *

Nobody was saying a thing about Evans’ policies, voting record or insufficiently progressive positions. The chants were all about “Support Black Women.” In case you haven’t picked up on this yet, Evans is white and one of her opponents in the primary, Stacey Abrams (who is described in the article as having been “treated like royalty”) is black. That’s the entire difference. In fact, when one of the AJ-C reporters caught up with the protesters to ask about their opposition to Evans, they couldn’t come up with a thing. (Emphasis added)

And that’s just how the man who is the deputy chairman of the Democratic Party likes it. “Keith Ellison demands Democrats defend ‘intersectionality,’” Emily Jashinsky writes at the Washington Examiner:

Ellison, a Democratic congressman from Minnesota, implored progressives gathered at Netroots Nation on Friday to embrace the philosophy of intersectionality. “All of us in this room have got to defend intersectionality as a concept,” he said from the stage, drawing cheers from the crowd.

“That applause ain’t quite loud enough!” Ellison went on, riling up the crowd.

Seated to his left was Kimberlé Crenshaw, the feminist scholar credited with introducing the philosophy of intersectionality in the 1980’s. Crenshaw said she’s been “astonished” by the attacks on her work, which even prompted her to go back and read it herself, wondering if perhaps she said something wrong. From that, Crenshaw explained she came away “with an even greater feeling that the distortion isn’t accidental.”

* * * * * * * * *

To sum up intersectionality in brief, it means that once you’ve accepted that everything is racist, consistency demands that you also accept everything is sexist, everything is transphobic, everything is Islamophobic, and so on and so forth. Think of it as the grand unified theory of victimhood.

Crenshaw herself has explained it “came from the idea that if you’re standing in the path of multiple forms of exclusion, you are likely to get hit by both.”

The doctrine is characteristic of the brand of progressive radicalism from which many centrist Democrats believe the party must disassociate in order to broaden its appeal and recapture working class voters between the coasts. With Ellison perched in power at the DNC, those pleas probably won’t be persuasive.

All of which is a reminder that the goons carrying tiki torches and pretending to be cast members in a revival of Triumph of the Will in Charlottesville aren’t the only group in America utterly obsessed with skin color. But they’re a powerless fringe group compared to the intersection of the Democratic party, academia, the media, and Silicon Valley. As someone whose worldview intersects at the crossroads of moderate to conservative to libertarian politics, I’m happy that such ideas have been an enormous anchor dragging down the left (err, aside from its aforementioned control of one of America’s two major political parties, academia, the media, and the computer industry). But as an American, I find racism repulsive on both sides of the aisle.

And of course, creating an army of angry SJWs has another downside for the left as well: “Creating Monsters Is The Easy Part,” David Thompson writes. “Enabling and excusing all that leftist psychodrama sure is expensive.”

INEZ STEPMAN: Google Fires Engineer For Noticing Men And Women Are Different: Google’s reaction, first condemning the memo and then firing its author, confirms in the most unfortunate terms fears about the company’s ideological ‘echo chamber.’

For years, I’ve thought that “Brave New World” was the clear winner in the dystopia prophesy contest, but the regressive left keeps reminding me to keep “1984” in the running. Like in other ideological purge cases, such as the firing of Mozilla CEO Brandan Eich and the browbeating of Harvard University president Larry Summers, leftists have urged Damore’s total banishment from the tech world until, in the words of one Twitter user, he learns “what it takes to actually be an engineer and a decent human.”

In other words, until Demore stops questioning Silicon Valley political groupthink and learns to love Big Brother, he will not be welcome in a technical profession that has nothing directly to do with politics.

The rigid politicization of everything and the drawing of ideological battle lines are bad for Google, as Demore’s memo points out, but they are even worse for America. While college students cry out for “safe spaces” from dissenting ideas, the real safe spaces Americans need are those in which to work, find friendship, and discuss opposing ideas without risking their livelihoods.

Silicon Valley turned into Mizzou so gradually I barely even noticed. But remember, your top priority can be shareholders, it can be diversity, or it can be technical excellence. But you can only have one top priority. Google’s seems pretty clearly to be diversity.

Related: Female Silicon Valley Engineer: Google Can’t Seem To Tolerate Diversity.

It’s fine to question Damore’s characterization of women. (As a female engineer in Silicon Valley, I endorse his suggestion to “treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group.”) It’s okay to disagree with the proposed solutions. But the backlash was egregiously swift and brutal. Google representatives issued multiple statements denouncing the document. Past and present colleagues chimed in over the weekend with calls for the engineer to be ousted. Media outlets like TechCrunch, Gizmodo and Motherboard jumped on board to declare the memo an “Anti-Diversity Manifesto.” It appears that the ideological echo chamber extends beyond Google’s campus.

Silicon Valley has a very peculiar definition of diversity that requires proportional representation from every gender and race, all of whom must think exactly alike. Given that Google has failed to reach this ideal despite nearly a decade of efforts, Damore might be right to suggest that it try a different tack. Google rejects 99.8 percent of job applicants, making it far more selective than any Ivy League university. It’s not unreasonable to posit that in this top 0.2 percent of the population, there may be various ways in which talent manifests differently between the sexes.

Suggesting that men and women are different, though, can be a perilous endeavor. In 2005, Harvard President Larry Summers speculated that the under-representation of women in top science and engineering positions might have something to do with the male tendency to exhibit extreme traits — to, say, have very high or low IQs. The remarks were widely condemned as an allegation that women have an innate disadvantage in science and math. Summers apologized profusely, but it was too late. The faculty convened and issued a no-confidence vote, and the president stepped down shortly thereafter.

Suppressing intellectual debate on college campuses is bad enough. Doing the same in Silicon Valley, which has essentially become a finishing school for elite universities, compounds the problem.

When an institution puts “social justice” ahead of its actual mission, decline is inevitable.

CHARLIE MARTIN: Diversity Is Conformity At Google.

So, the author should be fired and blackballed.

According to others, he should be beaten. (I’m linking Breitbart, not my favorite site, but a lot of these people have now blocked or protected their accounts.)

I can’t imagine why he felt that “Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology.”

Now, I wrote about my own experiences following the Brendan Eich debacle — Netscape was very interested in me and then, suddenly, was not. I’ve had the same experience several times now, and I’ve been effectively unemployed (except for writing) for nine months, the longest time ever (and if anyone needs Python or Java programming, or DevOps with Ansible, especially if it can be done remotely, or technical writing, let me know.)

Is it because I’m a visible conservative? Who knows. But you just have to look at the reaction to this memo to see that his worry that people are being silenced by a dominant ideology is well-founded.

There are a lot of unhappy people — mostly but not exclusively white males — in Silicon Valley who are unhappy with how PC it’s become. (Note that about 1/3 of Google employees who weighed in actually agreed with the essay). This is a litigation opportunity for lawyers who want to use California’s surprisingly strong strong laws against political discrimination in employment. It’s also a hiring opportunity for companies that want to be non-PC. And if all these guys got together, they could probably swing their Congressional district.

Meanwhile, Silicon Valley’s brand continues to suffer as they look less like bold innovators and more like deranged college administrators. This has all sorts of consequences, politically and economically. In particular, if the Trump Administration wants to go all-in on a strong antitrust enforcement effort against the tech industry’s behemoths, these kinds of episodes will strengthen his hand, and weaken the industry’s.

ASKING THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS: What If Nazi Germany Had Built the Atomic Bomb?

Successfully and efficaciously delivering a nuke would have been a problem for the Reich in the mid-1944-to-1945 timeframe, given the condition of the Luftwaffe and that the Allies and Soviets were closing in from all sides.

CHRISTIAN TOTO: Women’s March Declares War on HBO’s ‘Confederate.’

The show hasn’t cast a single star yet. No script has been written. No air date has been released.

That hardly matters to its detractors. The group heard the show’s basic premise and demand the series never see the light of day.


The series features an alternate history where the South seceded from the United States during the Civil War … and retained slavery. The ugliest of institutions didn’t go away but became entrenched in 21st century America.

It’s a provocative theme, no doubt. And it could be revolting if not handled delicately.

Yet in recent years we’ve seen another tale that chilled us, too. “The Man in the High Castle” envisions a world in which Hitler’s Third Reich won the second World War. America got partitioned into several pieces under the command of Germany and Japan.

That’s different because shut up.


Chelsea tweeted a link to a story about an arson fire at an LGBT center in Arizona with her coda about how it is an example of “the banality of evil”—the phrase made famous in Hannah Arendt’s controversial book Eichmann in Jerusalem. [Prof. Corey Robin of Brooklyn College] thought this a gross misuse or misunderstanding of Arendt’s phrase, and naturally defaulted to the usual mode of progressives everywhere, hectoring Chelsea for her superficiality. And Chelsea responded!

There follows a lot of explication about Arendt’s phrase, but twice Robin describes Chelsea thus: “author of a best-selling book; vice chair of a powerful global foundation; former special correspondent to NBC; possible congressional candidate, with a net worth of $15 million; daughter of the former president of the United States; daughter of the former Secretary of State and almost-president of the United States,” adding that “We have in this country a really weird ruling class.”

Credentialed-but-not-educated – and the worst political class in American history, as Glenn likes to say.

Steve Hayward’s write-up of the exchange at Power Line is fun, but you really should read the full back and forth between Robin and Chelsea, plus Robin’s correct assessment of how Arendt coined her immortal phrase and what she intended it to mean.

BRENDAN EICH AND MEMORIES PIZZA WERE UNAVAILABLE FOR COMMENT: Kathy Griffin learned a hard lesson in weaponized outrage.

As Ace says, the right has to emulate the tactics of the left. It’s the only way the left will change its behavior.


“Celebrate diversity” morphed into “Conform, proles” so slowly, I hardly even noticed.

GOOD LORD: Murder of Black Student by ‘Alt-Reich’ Suspect Highlights ‘Dangerous Tide,’ Says Congressman.

Richard Collins III, a Bowie State University student who was supposed to graduate this week, was visiting friends at the University of Maryland and waiting for an Uber with some of his pals at a bus stop at about 3 a.m. Saturday. A man approached the group and started shouting at Collins, University of Maryland Police Chief David Mitchell said.

“He said to the victim, ‘Step left, step left if you know what’s good for you,'” Mitchell said, citing witnesses at the scene. “The victim looked at him puzzled with the other friends of his and said ‘No,’. It was then that (the suspect) stabbed the victim in his chest.”

Sean Christopher Urbanski, 22, a University of Maryland student, was arrested near the scene of the crime and charged with first- and second-degree murder and first-degree assault.

Mitchell said Urbanski belonged to an “Alt-Reich Nation” Facebook group that posted “extreme bias against women, Latinos, members of the Jewish faith and especially African-Americans, which brings up questions as to the motive of this case.”

I don’t support the legal notion of hate crimes, but at this time there doesn’t seem to be much question of motive here.


GLEICHSCHALTUNG: Why was the person who got confronted terminated?

The Georgetown professor doing the confronting is Christine Fair, who was last seen bullying a Muslim Trump supporter.

The lefties will miss civil society when it’s gone.

GLEICHSCHALTUNG ACHIEVED: Saturday Edition of ESPN’s ‘SportsCenter’ Sponsored by MSNBC.

STILL NOT HITLER: 100 Days in and the Reichstag Hasn’t Burned Yet.

With President Trump’s 100 day mark approaching, those prophesying apocalyptic doom have not come out looking so good.

There have been no mass arrests of peaceful protestors. Federal judges rule against presidential orders, the President sputters in indignation—and the rulings stand. Putin hasn’t been offered the code to the nuclear football. Late night comics excoriate the president and the Gestapo doesn’t knock at their door. The grifters and mountebanks who hopped on the campaign wagon back when nobody in the establishment was willing to help the Trump operation are either learning to play in the big leagues or being edged toward the exits. The stock market is strong; the economy hasn’t tanked. An avalanche of leaks hasn’t exposed the collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign that so many people were sure was going to lead to impeachment.

In other words, life in our constitutional republic is still rolling on much as usual—or at least, closer to usual than any of the hyperventilators predicted. Congress and the courts are functioning as they did before; the powers of the President are still limited by the rule of law. . . .

But the Trump-Hitler folks made buffoons of themselves with paranoid fantasies and steamy, overheated scenarios of impending doom. Some will be big enough to admit their mistake, look hard at what they got wrong and why, and emerge as smarter and more creditworthy participants in the national conversation. Others, many others, will try to act as if nothing has happened, and will wonder why nobody listens the next time they cry “Wolf.”

Yep. Flashback: Perhaps we should require reading “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” in journalism schools.

NINA TEICHOLZ: Ditch The Egg White Omelet: “We were told for decades to avoid yolks and limit our dietary cholesterol to help protect against heart disease. Yet in 2015, the U.S. dietary guidelines dropped the daily cap on cholesterol. It turns out that studies since the 1950s had found that dietary cholesterol had little meaningful effect on blood cholesterol. What a shame for all of those delicious omelets we never got to eat. And, more seriously, for all the vitamins we missed — egg yolks are far more nutrient-dense than the whites, with super-rich amounts of biotin , choline and lutein.”


Appearing on MSNBC’s 3 p.m. ET hour on Tuesday under the guise of being a “presidential historian,” left-wing pundit Douglas Brinkley accused President Trump and his associates – without evidence – of committing an act of “treason.” He went on rant that the President’s new executive order rolling back onerous Obama-era environmental regulations was “an assault on the public lands.”

Anchor Kate Snow started off the discussion by inviting Brinkley to elaborate on recent comments he made to the Washington Post about the administration betraying the country: “You told the Washington Post last week that, quote, ‘There’s a smell of treason in the air,’ when it comes to this [Russia] investigation. Why did you say that and has anything changed about your view in the last week?”

As a reality check on the “smell of treason in the air,” Brinkley is the author of the 2004 hagiography, Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War. As the Weekly Standard noted back then:

Brinkley’s “not worried” about appearing biased, he tells the New Orleans Times-Picayune in a “wide-ranging interview in the soaring lobby of his Uptown home” published August 27. Sure, he says, “I’m sympathetic to Kerry in his 20s.” And “it’s no secret I think he would make a first-rate president.” And, okay, Brinkley’s “angry” about “false accusations made against Kerry’s military record.” Also, Brinkley cohosted a fundraiser for Kerry in February 2003. Plus which, he spoke at a rally for Kerry in New Orleans this past March. . .

But, hell, “I’m not a partisan” or anything, he points out. “I don’t have some ax to grind against President Bush. I try to be judicial.”

A judicial activist, you might call him.

Heh. So Trump is merely razing Obama’s legacy in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, you might say. In 2012, Brinkley wrote a fascinating biography of fellow lefty Walter Cronkite, in which he portrayed Mr. “That’s The Way It Is” as being a less than objective “just the facts, ma’am” journalist, who famously veered from reading the news to injecting his (invariably partisan Democrat) opinion on it during numerous occasions, not least of which were viciously attacking Barry Goldwater in ’64, declaring Vietnam unwinnable in ’68, and becoming an enviro-crank just in time for the first “Earth Day” in 1970, when the Gleichschaltung demanded that all good lefties embrace radical environmentalism and its related doomsday talk. (Here’s a look at some of the zanier predictions from the first Earth Day.)

In Cronkite, Brinkley noted:

Republicans had always liked the idea that Cronkite, even if liberal leaning, was pulling for the United States to whip the Soviets in the space race. But Nixon was now in the White House, and Cronkite’s promotion of the 1970s as the Decade of the Environment was a slap at petroleum companies, forest product industries, auto companies, and corporations seeking minerals. All his heroes in Eye on the World— Senator Ed Muskie (D-Maine), Dr. Barry Commoner, biologist Dr. Paul Ehrlich, and consumer activist Ralph Nader— were left-of-center political figures.

The Big Four villains of Eye on the World were Dow Chemical, the Florida Power & Light Company, Consolidated Edison, and Chevron Oil Company. It seemed that Union Carbide caught a break for sponsoring The Twenty-First Century for so long, as Cronkite took aim squarely at corporate polluters. With uncanny prescience, he scolded them for the damage carbon dioxide was causing the planet’s health. Long before Al Gore made global warming household words in his 2006 Academy Award– winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Cronkite sounded the alarm on CBS Evening News and in Eye on the World. “Every year American power plants pour more than 800 million tons of carbon dioxide into the skies,” Cronkite warned. “Some scientists suspect that carbon dioxide can turn the planet into a kind of greenhouse, sealing in heat so that temperatures gradually rise until the polar icecaps melt and a new deluge covers the lands of the earth.”

Of course, what Brinkley failed to add was the rest of Cronkite’s statement:

“Some meteorologists fear that dust is already filtering out too much sunlight, so that the world’s temperature already has started down toward a new ice age. And that pattern repeats: a science so far behind technology that it can’t predict which of two opposite catastrophes will occur.”

“Unexpectedly,” Brinkey’s book also doesn’t reference Cronkite’s prediction of global cooling, which featured in this memorable 1972 segment:

Five years later, Howard K. Smith, Cronkite’s rival at ABC was similarly predicting that “an ice age is returning to the Earth, with glaciers down to the Mason-Dixon line and freezing temperatures south of that.”

With nearly a half-century of enviro-doomsday crankery and not-so-final countdowns, no wonder Trump is taking a much more balanced approach between man, nature, and the economy. If this be treason, make the most of it – in much the same fashion as another legendary environmentalist, Genghis Khan himself.

COUNTERING POLITICAL ISLAMISM: A “must read” assessment by Ayaan Hirsi Ali (via the Hoover Institution).

Insisting that radical Islamists have “nothing to do with Islam” has led US policy makers to commit numerous strategic errors since 9/11. One is to distinguish between a “tiny” group of extremists and an “overwhelming” majority of “moderate” Muslims. I prefer to differentiate among Medina Muslims, who embrace the militant political ideology adopted by Muhammad in Medina; Mecca Muslims, who prefer the religion originally promoted by Muhammad in Mecca; and reformers, who are open to some kind of Muslim Reformation.

These distinctions have their origins in history. The formative period of Islam can be divided roughly into two phases: the spiritual phase, associated with Mecca, and the political phase that followed Muhammad’s move to Medina.


By not fighting a war of ideas against political Islam (or “Islamism”) as an ideology and against those who spread that ideology, we have made a grave error.

If Islamism is the ideology, then dawa encompasses all the methods by which it is spread. The term “dawa” refers to activities carried out by Islamists to win adherents and enlist them in a campaign to impose sharia law on all societies. Dawa is not the Islamic equivalent of religious proselytizing, although it is often disguised as such by blending humanitarian activities with subversive political activities.

Dawa as practiced by Islamists employs a wide range of mechanisms to advance the goal of imposing Islamic law (sharia) on society. This includes proselytization, but extends beyond that. In Western countries, dawa aims both to convert non-Muslims to political Islam and to bring about more extreme views among existing Muslims. The ultimate goal of dawa is to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with strict sharia. Islamists rely on both violent and nonviolent means to achieve their objectives.

Dawa is to the Islamists of today what the “long march through the institutions” was to twentieth-century Marxists. It is subversion from within, the use of religious freedom in order to undermine that very freedom. After Islamists gain power, dawa is to them what Gleichschaltung  (synchronization) of all aspects of German state, civil, and social institutions was to the National Socialists.

Read the whole thing.


A small group of Jews was assigned to a factory owned by Oskar Schindler. They, too, expected to die within months. But as viewers of the film Schindler’s List know, the stern-faced boss saved more than a thousand of his employees.

The remainder became part of the Six Million murdered by the Nazis. Most were ordinary Jews like those in Finkel’s account. If their tragedy is to have any meaning some 70 years after the fall of the Third Reich, it is because in their very ordinariness they represented a recognizable humanity—tradespeople, laborers, professionals, shoppers, neighbors. On the other side of the ledger, by employing all the modern means of propaganda, barbarism, and genocide, the Nazis have become the very definition of evil.

These facts are documented online, in countless films, in grade-school textbooks, in voluminous histories, in contemporary accounts, and in biographies.  Those who refuse to acknowledge the truths of these works we know as Holocaust deniers, but those who persist in comparing Adolf Hitler with any U.S. politician reveal themselves as members of a group just to the side of the Holocaust denier—the Holocaust trivializer. There are no lower categories.

Which brings us to this Tweet from Slate, the last journalistic redoubt of the Graham family, which once owned the Washington Post and Newsweek. File under “Questions Nobody is Asking:”

THE PASSWORD IS GLEICHSCHALTUNG. Claim: FBI Used Best Buy’s Geek Squad To Increase Secret Public Surveillance.

Earlier: Members of Best Buy’s Geek Squad passed incriminating evidence to the law enforcement agency and received payments from agents.

A paranoid schizophrenic is a guy who’s just found out what’s going on, to coin a phrase.

(Classical allusion in headline.)


Every writer speaks from an agenda which has no more claim to verity than any other, and which agenda prevails is strictly a matter of power. This is a trivial thought, but de Man invoked the influence of Martin Heidegger, the most prominent 20th century Existentialist. That was appropriate in a number of ways; after de Man’s death it was discovered that he had written nearly 200 articles for the Belgian puppet government’s press during the German occupation of World War II, including some anti-Semitic ones. He had also been convicted of embezzlement in absentia by a Belgian court. Heidegger joined the Nazi Party with enthusiasm and, although he did not find Hitler quite up to his expectations, he never repudiated this vile action.

De Man was revealed to be a rotter, but the damage was done. Deconstructionism encouraged every group to devise its own narrative and assert its own will. If the Western Canon simply expressed the will to power of dead white men, then minorities of various kinds could invent their own narratives and assert their own putative truth.

Earlier this week, Steve Green Insta-linked to an article at PJM with the ostensibly humorous title “Transgender Man Identifies as Alien, Plans to Remove Genitals, Adopt Kids.

But as political scientist Dale Kuehne, quoted by Rod Dreher in a fascinating piece titled “[Camille] Paglia: Transgender & Civilization’s Decline” correctly notes, “if the ultimate source of reference is the self, and if no other self than the individual is a reference point, how can you know who or what you are?… We don’t live at a tipping point; we already live beyond the tipping point. Whether adults realize it or not, the most important conversation today is not about gender, but about identity, as released from the confines of gender.”

This is the endpoint of Nietzsche’s nihilism and Foucault’s postmodernism. As David P. Goldman (aka “Spengler”) notes in the passage quoted at the start of this post, Heidegger’s brand of postmodernism had a very different endpoint – thankfully, we’re not quite there yet, even if we are living in Weimar America.

KURT EICHENWALD: How Donald Trump is fueling ISIS.

IRAQI COMMANDER: ISIS leaders ‘running away’ from Mosul.

Who you gonna believe — Kurt or the Iraqi commander’s own lying eyes?

THEY SHOULD BE PROSECUTED. Despite Berkeley Denials, Claims Surface of Student Rioters.

The “anti-fascist” group has come out to refute the claims made by University of California, Berkeley professor Robert Reich and the university’s administration and the police that only “outside agitators” participated in the riot last week at the university, claiming the rioters were indeed students of Berkeley.

A site called It’s Going Down, which provides a “platform for revolutionary anarchist, anti-fascist and autonomous anti-capitalist movements”, has published a first-person account about the violence that erupted at UC Berkeley after Milo Yiannopoulos’ speech was cancelled because of safety fears.

The author of the article dismisses the statements made by people claiming Berkeley students didn’t participate in the riots or they were hired by Yiannopoulos himself, writing “Of course there were students engaging in militant and combative tactics that night.”

Hardly a shocking claim.

ROBERT REICH IS HAVING REICHSTAG FIRE FLASHBACKS: Robert Reich: “Rumors” that Berkeley riots were a right-wing false flag, or something:

Old and busted: Mainstream media’s war on “fake news.” New hotness: Airing baseless rumors on air in order to feed the narrative. Mediate’s Alex Griswold highlights this bizarre exchange between former Clinton Cabinet member Robert Reich and CNN’s Don Lemon, in which Reich explains away the riots in Berkeley that prevented Milo Yiannopoulos’ speech at the university as a false flag by … Breitbart?

This isn’t the first time that Robert Reich has rejected your reality and substituted his own. Exit quote: “I claim no higher truth than my own perceptions. This is how I lived it.”

KURT EICHENWALD: Neil Gorsuch Is Supremely Qualified, and Must Not Be Confirmed.

Gorsuch, unfortunately, must be sacrificed on the altar of obscene partisanship erected by the Republicans in recent years. Temper tantrums designed to undermine the Constitution for naked political purposes cannot be rewarded. Our government cannot survive the short-term games-playing that has replaced fidelity to the intent of the Founding Fathers’ work in forming this once-great nation.

This goes back to the unconscionable decision of Republicans who refused to consider any nominee put forward by President Barack Obama following the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Obama nominated Merrick Garland, another eminently qualified candidate who served as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the second most important court in the nation. But in a decision that will go down as one of the greatest abuses of the Constitution in this nation’s history, the Senate’s Republican majority, under the leadership of their unprincipled majority leader, Mitch McConnell, declared they would not give Garland hearings, would not examine his qualifications and would not take a vote.

Instead, they made up a rule: A nominee for the Supreme Court can be considered for only three-quarters of any president’s term. In the fourth year, confirmations have to wait until after the election. And so the Supreme Court has been hobbled for coming up on one year—and, because the confirmation hearings will inevitably drag on, for months more to come.

It’s called “the Biden rule,” Kurt. Named after its author, Democrat Senator Joe Biden. You might have heard of him. He was Democrat President Barack Obama’s Democrat Vice President for the last eight years. Anyway, Joe came up with the Biden Rule in 1992 when the Democrats controlled the Senate, to stop Republican President Bush from naming a conservative to the court during the last quarter of his Administration. Some might have considered that a partisan act.

And a Republican-controlled Senate seems, shall we say, somewhat unlikely to tip the ideological balance of the Senate leftward, Kurt, when they have been armed with a weapon of pure partisanship — the nuclear option — forged by Democrat Harry Reid. You might have heard of him, too. Reid once used Senate trickery to pass ObamaCare over the strenuous objections of 41 Republican Senators — including a brand-new Republican Senator sent there by the people of Massachusetts, Kurt, for the express purpose of stopping Reid’s partisan antics. But Reid was a wily devil and overturned a couple centuries of Senate rules and traditions to pass the most partisan major legislation since… ever, maybe.

So if the GOP installs Neil Gorsuch — who earned his previous position with the vote of every single Senate Democrat — without a single Democrat vote, it will be thanks to the normalization of hyperpartisanship… by Democrats.

It might not be a very tasty sandwich, Kurt, but it’s Biden and Reid’s recipe.


“By the end of 1941,” writes Timothy Snyder in Holocaust: The Ignored Reality, “the Germans (along with local auxiliaries and Romanian troops) had killed a million Jews in the Soviet Union and the Baltics. That is the equivalent of the total number of Jews killed at Auschwitz during the entire war. By the end of 1942, the Germans (again, with a great deal of local assistance) had shot another 700,000 Jews, and the Soviet Jewish populations under their control had ceased to exist. … By 1943 and 1944, when most of the killing of West European Jews took place, the Holocaust was in considerable measure complete.”

* * * * * *

Maftsir doesn’t mince words when he talks about the near-erasure of the eastern half of the Holocaust. “The place of memory of the Holocaust is already taken up,” he says. “There is the Victim—Anne Frank. There is the Saint—Janusz Korczak. There is the Villain—Adolf Eichman. There is Hell, it’s Auschwitz. There is heroism—the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. And that’s it.”

Read the whole thing.

(Via Maggie’s Farm.)

WELL, POSSIBLY: Hugh Hewitt: Trump At Risk Of Impeachment If House Flips To Democrats In 2018. How likely is that? It doesn’t seem likely now, but . . .

Of course, Robert Reich has been claiming that the GOP establishment will impeach Trump because they’d rather have Pence. Seems like a recipe for party suicide to me, but that’s not to say they aren’t dumb enough to do something like that.


4. The mechanism for this homogenization is not obvious. Unlike the Catholic Church, the Cathedral has no pope (although I read recently that Warren Buffet owns 71 newspapers, and the New York Times is owned in part by Carlos Slim, whose vast fortune has a lot to do with his special relationship with the Mexican government). One factor is that the credibility of a set of information sources depends on their being able to agree on a story (coordination games, the peloton effect, the parliament of clocks). Another factor is self-dealing: people with high verbal skills tend to support a system of government that is controlled by people with high verbal skills, and once they control it, they tend to want it to be unlimited in scope. Another factor is self-selection: once an institution becomes dominated by members of a political movement, it tends to become unpleasant and career-limiting for anyone else to work there. Another factor is that the easiest way to write a newspaper story is to copy it from a politician’s press handout. To a considerable extent, these institutions are deliberately manipulated by politicians (broadcast licensing, educational and research funding, journalistic access, selective leaking of secrets, etc., aka Gleichschaltung; in many cases, journalists are literally married to political operatives or are involved in “revolving door” relationships with the political institutions they write about, such as Jeff Immelt of GE, MSNBC and the Obama administration). But the two biggest factors are probably that (1) intellectuals are seduced by political power (the Boromir effect), and (2) these institutions are quasi-religious, and have taken on the peculiar characteristics of the dominant quasi-religion of the day.

5. Three things make an intellectual movement quasi-religious: (1) the outputs that they produce are credence goods, (2) they provide a framework for competition for social status, and (3) this basis is insecure. The fact that credence goods are involved means that conflict about them will tend to be irrational. The fact that social status is involved, and that the basis for social status is insecure, means that this conflict will be relatively vicious, and will carry a strong odor of a witch hunt.

6. The Cathedral is powerful partly because its relative homogeneity allows it to serve as a gatekeeper of politically relevant mass-market information and interpretation. But its real power comes from control of what ideas are associated with high status. Everyone thinks, “I’m my own man. I think for myself.” But unconsciously, people tend to copy the opinions of people who are one step above them on the social ladder. This was explained in the Cerulean Top scene in The Devil Wears Prada.

Read the whole thing; and don’t miss the clip of that aforementioned “Cerulean Top” scene from The Devil Wears Prada, a nifty variation on the line Claude Rains’ sly ambassador character tells Peter O’Toole in Lawrence of Arabia: “If we’ve been telling lies, you’ve been telling half-lies. A man who tells lies, like me, merely hides the truth. But a man who tells half-lies has forgotten where he put it.”

TO BE FAIR, THOUGH, DOES ANYBODY? John Oliver may well care about gay people, but it turns out gay people don’t care a huge amount about John Oliver.

FAKE NEWS: Dallas Cops Have No Record Of Eichenwald Police Report.

A Twitter user under the handle “@jew_goldstein” tweeted an image Thursday with flashing colors saying Eichenwald deserved a seizure. Theresa Eichenwald, his wife, responded from his account, “@jew_goldstein This is his wife, you caused a seizure. I have your information and have called the police to report the assault.”

Kurt said Friday that police are investigating whether this is a federal crime as he said it is a “cross-state assault.” The Dallas Police Department told TheDC that there is no police report from those dates from either Eichenwald and that they cannot have an investigation without one.

Newsweek told The Daily Caller on Friday that they could confirm that what Theresa has said was true. Newsweek’s managing editor Ken Li told TheDC Monday they had no comment about the lack of a police report filed with the Dallas Police Department.

Li had no further comment regarding Eichenwald. “We’re not handling that, you’re going to have to talk to Kurt,” the Newsweek managing editor said.

If I were having a seizure, I’d rather have my wife by my side than trolling Twitter trolls.