Sunday, 26 February 2017

Donald Trump, free speech and impaling liberals

If you have time, Mark Steyn is, as ever, eloquent about free speech here

In a speech yesterday he argued that proposed legislation in Canada that would criminalise criticism of Muslims “is not benign and harmless; it will lead to more violence because it says you cannot discuss these issues in public. In countries where there is no free speech, shooting, killing and violence are the only ways to make your opinions known.” 
“I am a phobe about phobias,” said Steyn, who noted that if you wait long enough “there’ll be a new phobia” for whatever the left want people to stop discussing.
I am just about old enough to remember when free speech was a left-wing demand. This ages me. I was only a young child, of course.

A Swedish friend told me yesterday that, since Mr. Trump made his throwaway remark about Sweden last week, Swedes are busy debating the issue of immigration. 

Swedes are a very conformist people and people there have been ashamed to voice criticism of the fact that Sweden has accepted more asylum seekers by far, in proportion to her total population, than any other European country save Germany. 

Whatever else Donald Trump does, he is effortlessly widening the scope for permitted discourse, which has been narrowed to a remarkable degree by politicians and especially by academics. 

This has consequences for the modern left, which bases much of its political programme on identity politics. Identity politics obtains legitimacy by preventing discussion. 

The President (how odd that still sounds) is a troll of genius and it's fun to watch him. For example, when he quoted on Friday a friend who told him that 'Paris is no longer Paris'. 

If the left rise to the President's bait they are impaled on his hook. They thereby do his work for him. 

But I quite see that they have no alternative to being noisily outraged. They have been triggered. 

Like Luther, here they stand and they can do no other.

Saturday, 25 February 2017

Too much internationalism

"Trump has many problems, some of them self-inflicted. But the generality is for the better, massively." Rod Liddle today.

I agree.

He asked him me the day before the US election which candidate I should support and he said 'God knows'  and that he backed Trump by the narrowest sliver over Hillary. I think I was completely unable to choose between the two.

I used to take left wing opinions seriously, but now can't. Left-wingers to me always sound lie undergraduates.

Age perhaps, wisdom perhaps and maybe they have just ran out of ideas (but so had the right till a moment ago).

Politics is now about national sovereignty (a.k.a. democracy) versus internationalism. When I said, on a left-wing Facebook friend's wall last year, that the big problem nowadays was too much internationalism she said, 'How can you have too much internationalism?' Her friends were equally bewildered and shortly afterwards she blocked me.

Yes, the new President is frightening and preposterous. A man of bad character, a draft dodger, a vulgarian, a braggart, a bully and a monster. I know.

While Mr. Trump seeks to remake conservatism, Mrs. May is trying to do so too. Peter Hitchens said, a while back, that the Labour Party no longer care about the poor and the Tory Party no longer care about the nation. I think the Tories under Mrs May (who, in my eyes, has many faults) now care about both.

She is trying to triangulate between Messrs. Cameron and Trump. 

Friday, 24 February 2017


"The problem is that having cast out the elite, we have no-one with a CV left to hire. Trump's revolutionaries tripped over their own shoelaces. Proposing to put the One China policy on the table in trade negotiations, or hinting at the breakup of the European Union, or extending overtures to the European alternative right, were really dangerous errors. China will fight a war to keep Taiwan in its territory--it is not a subject for negotiation. If the EU breaks up, Germany will move east (Germany and China are now each other's largest trading partners). Angela Merkel is awful (and I've attacked her in print for the past year and more) but she's better than the bunch of Putin puppets who would replace her. (I don't mind making a deal with Putin as long as it is from a position of American strength)."
David Goldman (who writes as Spengler in the Asia Times)
"That is what Britain now is.
A country in which the Christian Democratic Left seeks to enact as much as possible of the Social Democratic Left's programme while holding it up as a bogeyman for electoral purposes.
It seems to be working."
David Lindsay

Thursday, 23 February 2017

"We must leave the EU quickly – it is falling apart faster than I thought"

A very interesting article by Allister Heath in today's Daily Telegraph, headlined "We must leave the EU quickly – it is falling apart faster than I thought".

He thinks that how Brexit will affect Britain is less important than how it will effect Europe. He says:

"One of the reasons why I backed Brexit was because the UK is the only major European country able and willing to extricate itself from the doomed project in a rational, pro-trade, pro-market way. Brexit allows us to show the world that there is a better, more sustainable way to embrace real globalisation without having to hand over power to corrupt, unelected technocrats, and that wanting self-government doesn’t necessitate voting for extreme, destructive National Front-style parties. So far, it looks even better than I hoped, thanks to Theresa May’s enthusiasm for free trade and her commitment to keep the country open to capital and talent.

Wednesday, 22 February 2017

Andrew Hutchinson has died

Andrew Hutchinson, who was deputy editor of the Telegraph, has died.

I knew his daughter and through her met him. His first words to me were 'I don't know why you're here but I can tell you one thing. You won't leave here with a job.'

I remember I told him the best thing about the Telegraph was the obituaries. He replied, 'You're probably right.'
Then he sent me to obituaries to see if they had work for me. There I met Damian Thompson who greeted me with a question: 'What religion are you?'

Monday, 20 February 2017

Thoughts for Monday

Yascha Mounk, in Slate
For much the same reasons that old-fashioned flip phones proved an important tool for African rebel leaders, Facebook and Twitter have given radicals in North America and Western Europe an important tool in their fight against the democratic consensus.
...The same phenomenon is in the middle of transforming the media landscape. Until a few years ago, a small elite of writers, editors, producers, and news anchors effectively decided what views were mainstream enough to be given a hearing. This may sound sinister, but it served an important purpose. It allowed the journalistic class to contain false claims and to refuse to publish racist articles. It also meant that critics who rejected polite political discourse had trouble breaking in. Building a distribution network was expensive, so they couldn’t do much beyond writing angry letters to the editor (which those newspapers could decline to print).

Brendan O'Neill
The decision to carpet bomb Cambodia was made at a breakfast meeting in the Pentagon in March 1969. So it was christened 'Operation Breakfast'. Nixon was informed of the plans when he returned from a church service and he gave the go-ahead right away. He declared himself "really excited". That night American airplanes dropped 2,400 tonnes of bombs on Cambodia. In one night. The whole thing was kept secret.
Stop calling Trump a uniquely wicked president. It's embarrassing.

Donald Trump is right about Sweden, unfortunately

Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt tweet reads:

Donald Trump has been jeered because, talking about terrorist attacks in Europe 
at his Saturday evening rally, he added, 
"Look at what's happening last night in Sweden. You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden. Who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible.”
This was taken as a reference to a non-existent attack.

In fact, his spokesman disclosed that he was referring to a Fox News documentary he saw the previous night about migrant violence in Sweden.

He promised during the election that he would be 'presidential' but this loose way of talking is not presidential, though it is refreshing to see a politician speaking without a script or an autocue. 

What is more important, though, is that he is right about an immigrant-linked crime wave in Sweden. Instead of jeering at him, people should look at the issue. 

I blogged about immigrant criminality in Sweden and its undiscussability in 2015. That was before the large influx of migrants happened. In that year Sweden was to take 163,000 refugees. I wrote then:

Sweden used to be a country with extremely low levels of violent crime and a great deal of social cohesion. Now, because of immigration, this has changed.

When crimes are reported from Sweden the link with immigration is often not mentioned. The English language press reported widespread rioting in Sweden in 2013 without for some time mentioning that the rioters were Muslim.

Now two people have been shot in Gothenburg and the Guardian hints that the 

deprived borough where Wednesday’s killings took place... has high levels of recent immigration and overcrowding.
The Guardian is able to imply that ethnic minorities are responsible for these crimes by providing what is nowadays called a narrative and the narrative is this:
Poverty, racism and segregation are driving young men from immigrant backgrounds into gangs and gun crime (continued here).

Saturday, 18 February 2017

Historians tell us surprisingly little about current day politics

Political commentary by fine historians is rarely of any value or interest - certainly not that of Eric Hobsbawm, Tony Judt, Norman Davies, Eric Foner, Niall Ferguson or Mark Marzower - nor A.J.P. Taylor. My friend Andrew Roberts did not convince me to admire George W. Bush. 

Politicians and journalists who become historians, like Alan Clarke and Andrew Marr, are the exceptions that prove the rule.

This should be born in mind when reading about the 91 presidential historians who this week rated Obama the 12th best out of the 45 or that Professor Ronald L Feinman has predicted that Donald Trump will last in office somewhere between between the 31 days of William Henry Harrison, who died of a cold he caught at his inauguration in 1841, and the 199 days of James Garfield, who was assassinated in 1881.

Historians cannot usefully predict the future any more than economists can or bookmakers. They do not have any gift of understanding what is happening now. They only know, if they are good, an approximation to how things were in the past.  This is not their fault. It is the human condition.

Once history was written by men (they were all men) who earned their money through

Thursday, 16 February 2017

A new political geology

Around the developed world a new political geology is becoming apparent. The fissure is not between left and right, as we have used those words, but between people who like national sovereignty, on the one hand, and internationalists or globalists.

On the side of national sovereignty are the Burkean and Disraelian conservatives, people who like the distributist ideas of Belloc and Chesterton, who were liberals, socialists of the Orwell type and the old fashioned hard left (think Dennis Skinner). In the internationalist camp are Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, classical liberals and the modern Clintonian or Blairite liberals, The Financial Times and The Economist, a lot of CEOs of banks and large multinational companies and most on the left. Many of them, like the Clintons, hope one day for a borderless world.

This dichotomy is not identical with, but is connected to, the debate between the idealist and realist schools of foreign policy. It slightly echoes the debates between Disraeli and Gladstone. 

It also reminds me of something said long ago by Disraeli.
"In a progressive country change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and the traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract principles, and arbitrary and general doctrines." 

Wednesday, 15 February 2017

Trump's foreign policy, a slow motion coup in America and regime change in Romania

Today's Daily Telegraph has a piece by Con Coughln, a journalist who always strikes me as being close in his thinking to MI6 and the British defence establishment, expressing fears lest Donald Trump not realise the danger Iran poses for the US's allies. 

There is no doubt that Iran does, of course - the Middle East is riven by a conflict between the Sunni powers, including the Saudis who are in effect allied with Israel, and the Shias. This is what the wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen are about.

And there is no sense whatever in the USA abandoning traditional allies.

But nor, as Mr. Obama realised and Hillary did not, is there any reason why the US should fight their wars for them.

There is not and never has been any 'Special Relationship' between the US and the UK. Few people in the USA even know the phrase. The only Special Relationship the USA has is with Israel. 

Sunday, 12 February 2017

Quotations for Sunday

"It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house for the voice of the kingdom." Jonathan Swift

"I wish I was as sure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." Lord Melbourne

"I choose my friends for their good looks, my acquaintances for their good characters, and my enemies for their good intellects. A man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies." Oscar Wilde

"Orthodoxy is my doxy and heterodoxy is another man's doxy." Bishop Warburton

“A romantic is usually afraid in case reality doesn't come up to expectations.” Graham Greene