Daily Archives: August 4, 2022

In a bad new epidemic of hypocrisy and wokedom that Simon Lincoln Reader calls an outbreak of California Blue, involving examples of cosplay disguised as activism such as Prince Harrys mouthing off about climate change having just landed at Van Nuys in a Gulf Stream, Reader says hed rather have the old-fashioned corruption of Faith Muthambi any day of the week. He imagines Faith and her friends cackling in the back of a Hummer limousine, bursting with polony and Fanta Pine, speeding wildly in front of plumes from extremely leaded petrol en route to a party at an abattoir, compared with UKs fey Rishi Sunak gazing soulfully out at the ocean with a look of *deep concern* over sea levels. And he argues theres rising intolerance of California Blue and its symptoms everywhere, from Holland to Sri Lanka to the US. Readbelow for some straight-talking, politically incorrect opinions. Sandra Laurence

By Simon Lincoln Reader*

Tom Bower is possibly Britains most popular biographer but his new book on the fracturing of the Royal Family (Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the War between the Windsors) could easily have been called The Descent of Man. More than gossip, a dramatic portrait emerges of a young man contaminated by a condition known as California Blue. This disease is more dangerous than Monkeypox or whatever next the WHO has in mind for us: it took a young (by all accounts, excellent) soldier with a fondness for smoking and naked billiards into the despair of cosplay disguised as activism, where everything is racist. Through Harry a great tragedy is confirmed: Western Man the species defined by the brilliance of life in his late grandfather is dead, and the imposter who replaced him mouths off about climate change having just landed at Van Nuys in a Gulf Stream.

Im afraid that one of the contenders for leadership of Britains Conservative party and subsequently, the role of Prime Minister, is himself infected with California Blue. Prior to coof little was known of Rishi Sunak besides his marriage to the daughter of one of Indias richest men (founder of Infosys), who he met in Silicon Valley. That changed in a cabinet re-shuffle in 2020; just as things were hotting up courtesy of Wuhan, Boris Johnson appointed Rishi Goldman Sachs alum as Chancellor. As these kinds of detached people terrified of tough decisions so often do, Rishi bounced from one stinker to the next, kicking the can further down the road until the opportunity to stab Boris Johnson appeared.

Rishi is a Californian politician, but in Britain. Even before he was announced a finalist, he was replying to questions with non-answers perhaps the most alarming was an attempt to answer the question: What is a woman? Instead of adult human female, he mumbled his way through a erm-um-uh-I support-the-Prime-Ministers-declaration-ah-um response, which is how the problems in Los Angeles County started decades ago. As one of the two finalists for Number 10 Downing Street, he declared, I flew back from the US in 2021 to stop the government plunging the UK into another lockdown! That statement has since been described as categorically false by government sources and reporters. In contrast, his opponent Liz Truss (Foreign Secretary) answered No when asked whether she would consider a lockdown in the event of another leak from Wuhan.

Dont be fooled by his Brexit credentials; the Harry, or Californian Blue, is strong in him in other ways. He wants a central bank digital currency to obliterate Bitcoin. Hes a massive fan of Britains ailing, sclerotic (but the diversity) NHS. Worse and very Californian is his defiance of historys documented lessons, specifically the history of finance, which shows that if you increase the circulation of cash without a corresponding increase in real supply, the end result is ten times out ten something called inflation.

So if it came down to Faith Muthambi vs Rishi, my cross would be next to the old girl. At least with her youll get exactly what you expect: old-fashioned corruption with increasing reluctance toward discretion. Whilst Rishi is splashed across newspapers standing next to Dr Jill Biden staring out at the ocean with a look of *deep concern* (sea levels), Faith and her friends will be cackling in the back of a Hummer limousine, bursting with polony and Fanta Pine, speeding wildly in front of plumes from extremely leaded petrol en route to a party at an abattoir. Every June, the civil service will ensnare Rishi with a Pride flag forcing him to send a tweet photo to Brett Herron, GOODs failed mayoral candidate, expressing sympathy (solidarity) that Cape Towns City Council refuses to use pronouns. Try to do that with Faith see what happens to you. You wont find her at any event hosted by unelected creepy organisations determined to instruct elected officials or you will, but only to procure those small bottles of Scotch from the hotel bar fridge, to pair with other small bottles she took from the airline getting there. In addition, Rishi has a fondness for skinny ties and no man should ever wear a slim Jim.

Because 95% of the worlds prestige media journalists are infected with it, this might not be readily apparent but theres rising intolerance of California Blue and its symptoms everywhere, from Holland to Sri Lanka to the USA. And if you dont believe me that elected infected officials who invested in the narrative are untrustworthy and beyond mad, just look at what California Blues patient zero, Nancy Pelosi, got up to this past week.

Read also:

(Visited 21 times, 21 visits today)

Read more:
SLR: Give me old-fashioned South African corruption any time! - BizNews

When you think of Richard Madeley, you probably also think of Alan Partridge.

The infamous socially inept and politically incorrect media personality - sorry, I'm talking about Partridge here - is known for his howling blunders.

Over the years, Madeley has drawn parallels with Steve Coogans bumbling, tone-deaf comedy character thanks to his hilarious off-key takes on the latest news stories.

The veteran host is a one-of-a-kind - and has built up a huge fan base for his unique way with words over the years.

He took over presenting on GMB from Piers Morgan - another man who bears a close resemblance to Partridge.

Previously Steve Coogan, who plays the bumbling personality on screen, admitted that he thought the pair were pretty similar.

"I suppose if you fused Richard Madeley with Piers Morgan you might get close to who Partridge is at the moment, he told Naga Munchetty on BBC Breakfast.

The ITV star seems okay with this branding, as he told one local paper: "I suppose I do have a bit of Partridge about me, but there's a bit of Partridge in every journalist on the planet."

Now as his name (once again) trends on Twitter thanks to his interview with Chloe Kelly, we've taken a deeper look into whether Madeley really is the real-life Alan Partridge. Back of the net!

Image:

He once scolded a guest for weeping when he met the paramedics who had saved his life, telling them: "Stop crying. This is supposed to make you happy."

He then added: "Anyway, after the break, the biggest dog in the UK. And he really is big. Don't miss it!"

Reflecting on a teacher remortgaging her home to save her dog's life, the 66-year-old asked viewers: "What price do you put on your pet's care? Is there a point where you just say, 'Too expensive, the dog has to die?"

While interviewing a group of Primordial Dwarves, he asked: "Do you find that people patronise you? That means they talk down to you."

The rise of 'Me Too' sparked a much-needed discussion about the inappropriate sexual conduct across countless industries.

Discussing the problem in Westminster, Richard said: "And that's one of the questions of the day. To touch or not to touch? When is it appropriate and when is it not? We'll be talking about that very soon."

Chatting to some 'freegans' who raids supermarket bins for food, he cheekily asked: "What's your supermarket skip of choice, then? I quite like shopping at Waitrose".

To one guest who had a stammer: "You looked as if your head was going to come off!

Quizzing one of the Birmingham Six, he asked: "What do you notice most that has changed during your 18 years in jail? Cars have five gears now, for example.

Image:

Richard married wife Judy in 1986 and the pair had two children: son Jack and daughter Chloe.

They ended up presenting This Morning on ITV together in 1988 - and along the way, Richard has been rather frank about their life.

He once told viewers: "When me and Judy were trying to conceive, I used to douse my balls in icy water before intercourse.

Another time, he mused: "Remember when you had thrush Judy? You had a terrible time of it."

When Judy once revealed she once dreamed of becoming a doctor, he shot her down, saying: "No, you would have ended up killing everybody."

And after she once confused a viewer's age, he laughed: "Ha ha, she failed maths. She did, she did!"

Image:

Famously, he once told Bill Clinton: I know what its like to be wronged by the press. I was once accused of shoplifting. Unlike you though, I knew I was innocent.

In 2007, former Dr Who Peter Davidson was interviewed by Richard, alongside his daughter, actress Georgia Moffett.

They aired a clip of her new show in which her character complains of her husband: "I just wish he had a bigger d***."

"Did Georgia wish you had a bigger d***?" Madeley then asked her dad - leaving people in stitches

While interviewing Keira Knightly, he yelled to his production team: Can we get some make-up please? Get Keira looking like a crack wh*re shed make a good crack wh*re!

Introducing Paul Gascoigne, he said: "He suffers for us. He bears our pain in the most public way possible. He serves a timeless human need, one that goes back long before the time of Christ. Perhaps this has always been Paul Gascoignes destiny.

Earlier this week, he called England player Chloe Kelly 'Coco' in an awkward interview on Tuesday morning (2 August).

The football star was appearing on Good Morning Britain two days after her extra-time goal saw the Lionesses win the Euro 2022 final.

Wrapping up the interview, Madeley called Kelly Coco and thanked her for coming on the show.

Chloe -or Coco as I call my daughter Chloe -thank you for coming in, the presenter said.

Image:

Appearing on ITV's Good Morning Britain in 2021, Corrie actor Nigel Havers remained professional when Richard Madeley asked: 'Do you ever get mistaken for the Duke of Westminster?', confirming he didn't.

Awkwardly he had referred to the wrong duke - Gerald Grosvenor, who died in 2016...

"You look at the beach and you think, ahh, pretty pretty, lovely golden sand, thats safe. Not in certain parts of the country quicksand!

Watch out this summer...

Image:

The presenter once complained he had to carry around salt to ensure his dishes are correctly seasoned.

He told viewers: I have salt in my bag. Increasingly in restaurants they wont give you salt because its bad for the heart. I carry a little vial of salt, because if youre in a restaurant, and you order the soup, say, and it comes and its under-salted, why would you sit there for the next 15 minutes sipping under-salted soup?

Chatting about the heavy topic of war crimes, he said: "Obviously, we had the Nuremberg trials after the war and we hanged quite a few Nazis and imprisoned a lot of others and we let them out eventually.

"But we didnt go after the Hitler Youth as far as Im aware. We didnt go after the Hitler Youth we only went after adults who served in the Hitler regime. And thats something to reflect on, I think.

Read More

Read More

View original post here:
Richard Madeley's cringiest gaffes as GMB host is coined the new Alan Partridge - The Mirror

Funnyman John Oliver recently offered a confused message on whats driving rent prices sky high. This week he moved onto inflation, and his analysis was much sounderthough he still made one critical mistake.

The British-American comedian and host of HBOs Last Week Tonight with John Oliver begins by noting everyone is pointing fingers over inflation. President Joe Biden blames Vladmir Putin. Republicans are blaming Joe Biden and his Build Back Better spending agenda. Democratic lawmakers Sheila Jackson Reid and Elizabeth Warren say its corporate greed, while other commentators have cited supply chain disruptions.

There has been a flurry of finger-pointing, Oliver says, with many tending to place the blame at whatever they were already mad at.

Some of these arguments make little sense, however, including corporate greed.

Its not like corporations only just got greedy the last two years, Oliver says, adding that some companies may be using the inflationary environment to charge higher prices. Most economists will tell you thats not what caused inflation in the first place.

He also debunked Bidens common refrain that inflation is Putins tax hike, though Oliver rightly noted the war in Ukraine has not helped inflation, since it has increased energy demand and disrupted supply.

When Biden said, Inflation is largely the fault of Putin, that is clearly not true, Oliver says. Inflation was happening before Putin even invaded Ukraine, so thats just not how time works.

Not only does Oliver reject these two misguided explanations, he largely gets the basics of inflation correct.

Too much money chasing a limited supply of goods can lead to inflation, he says.

This is an almost verbatim quote of Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who explained that inflation is caused by too much money chasing after too few goods. And Oliver notes that by expanding the money supply to finance massive stimulus spending, the government inadvertently created too much money without a corresponding increase in goods, causing inflation.

Importantly, Oliver says this wasnt the only cause of inflation, something some of Bidens critics have overlooked. (Government lockdowns, which crippled supply chains, also played a role, as did the war in Ukraine and government policies that hampered energy production.)

Olivers segment is funny and even informative in some ways. He goes off the rails though in a few ways.

First, as noted above, Oliver admits that people did have more cash on hand because of the Federal Reserves money pumping, but he argues that this policy was necessary because it helped us avoid a Covid-induced financial crisis.

The financial crisis was not induced by Covid, however. The financial crisis was induced by government, which closed the economy and put millions of Americans out of work.. This is an important distinction, and one Oliver probably overlooked in large part because he supported government lockdowns and ridiculed people who opposed them. Lockdowns failed to tame the virus, an abundance of evidence shows, but the action prompted the massive stimulus spending to avoid the Covid-induced financial crisis Oliver cites.

This was not the only way the lockdowns caused inflation, however. The governments pandemic response is also what caused the supply chain problems.

"If you don't make stuff, there's no stuff, Elon Musk noted early in the pandemic.

Throughout the segment, Oliver points out that these supply chain issues have also exacerbated inflation. While the monetary expansion resulted in more money, the supply chain issues resulted in fewer goods and servicesa perfect recipe for inflation.

But Oliver misses a simple fact: however you slice it, inflation was caused by the government, whether its the supply chain disruptions they caused with lockdowns or the erosion of the dollars purchasing power through money printing.

This matters, because Oliver seems to see the solution to inflation as more government. Throughout his segment, he defends the Federal ReserveIt was not like the Fed was alone in calling this wrong. Most economists thought inflation would go away on its ownand concluded his show by advocating more government intervention to alleviate the problem. (Taxpayer-funded rental insurance. Taxes on higher-income earners to finance refundable child tax credits.)

I want to like John Oliver. Hes funny, has a great accent, and is not an unintelligent person.

But in his highly-entertaining and pretty informative analysis on inflation, he somehow still manages to miss the true culprit of inflation. Governmentabove any other single entityis the root of our inflationary problems. Nor should this come as any surprise.

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say history is largely a history of inflation, usually inflations engineered by governments for the gain of governments, the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek once observed.

John Oliver is right that corporate greed and Putins tax hike are poor answers when it comes to explaining inflation. But he still cant seem to see that the government is the root of the inflation problem, not the answer to it.

See more here:
What John Oliver Gets Right (and Wrong) about Inflation - Foundation for Economic Education

Nine months after the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann died at the end of a noose in Israel, a controversial but thoughtful commentary about his trial appeared in The New Yorker. The public reaction stunned its author, the famed political theorist and Holocaust survivor Hannah Arendt (1906-1975). It was February 1963.

Arendts eyewitness assessment of Eichmann as terribly and terrifyingly normal took the world by surprise. Her phrase, the banality of evil, entered the lexicon of social science, probably forever. It was taken for granted that Eichmann, despite his soft-spoken and avuncular demeanor, must be a monster of epic proportions to play such an important role in one of the greatest crimes of the 20th Century.

I was only following orders, he claimed in the colorless, matter-of-fact fashion of a typical bureaucrat. The world thought his performance a fiendishly deceptive show, but Hannah Arendt concluded that Eichmann was indeed a rather ordinary and unthinking functionary.

How callous! A betrayal of her own Jewish people! How could any thoughtful person dismiss Eichmann so cavalierly?! Arendts critics blasted her with such charges mercilessly, but they had missed the point. She did not condone or excuse Eichmanns complicity in the Holocaust. She witnessed the horrors of national socialism first-hand herself, having escaped Germany in 1933 after a short stint in a Gestapo jail for anti-state propaganda. She did not claim that Eichmann was innocent, only that the crimes for which he was guilty did not require a monster to commit them.

How often have you noticed people behaving in anti-social ways because of a hope to blend in, a desire to avoid isolation as a recalcitrant, nonconforming individual? Did you ever see someone doing harm because everybody else was doing it? The fact that we all have observed such things, and that any one of the culprits might easily, under the right circumstances, have become an Adolf Eichmann, is a chilling realization.

As Arendt explained, Going along with the rest and wanting to say we were quite enough to make the greatest of all crimes possible.

Eichmann was a shallow and clueless joiner, someone whose thoughts never ventured any deeper than how to become a cog in the great, historic Nazi machine. In a sense, he was a tool of Evil more than evil himself.

Commenting on Arendts banality of evil thesis, philosopher Thomas White writes, Eichmann reminds us of the protagonist in Albert Camuss novelThe Stranger(1942), who randomly and casually kills a man, but then afterwards feels no remorse. There was no particular intention or obvious evil motive: the deed just happened.

Perhaps Hannah Arendt underestimated Eichmann. He did, after all, attempt to conceal evidence and cover his tracks long before the Israelis nabbed him in Argentina in 1960facts which suggest he did indeed comprehend the gravity of his offenses. It is undeniable, however, that ordinary people are capable of horrific crimes when possessed with power or a desire to obtain it, especially if it helps them fit in with the gang that already wields it.

The big lesson of her thesis, I think, is this: If Evil comes calling, do not expect it to be stupid enough to advertise itself as such. Its far more likely that it will look like your favorite uncle or your sweet grandmother. It just might cloak itself in grandiloquent platitudes like equality, social justice, and the common good. It could even be a prominent member of Parliament or Congress.

Maximilien Robespierre and Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, I suggested in a recent essay, were peas in the same pod as Eichmannordinary people who committed extraordinarily heinous acts.

Hannah Arendt is recognized as one of the leading political thinkers of the Twentieth Century. She was very prolific, and her books are good sellers still, nearly half a century after her death. She remains eminently quotable as well, authoring such pithy lines as Political questions are far too serious to be left to the politicians, The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution, and The sad truth of the matter is that most evil is done by people who never made up their minds to be or do either evil or good.

Some of Arendts friends on the Left swallowed the myth that Hitler and Stalin occupied opposite ends of the political spectrum. She knew better. Both were evil collectivists and enemies of the individual (see list of suggested readings below). Hitler never intended to defend the West against Bolshevism, she wrote in her 1951 book The Origins of Totalitarianism, but always remained ready to join the Reds for the destruction of the West, even in the middle of the struggle against Soviet Russia.

To appreciate Hannah Arendt more fully, I offer here a few additional samples of her writings:

The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer.This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one liea lie which you could go on for the rest of your daysbut you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows.And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.

_____

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convincedNazior the convincedCommunist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.

_____

The essence oftotalitarian government, and perhaps the nature of every bureaucracy,is to make functionaries and mere cogs in the administrative machinery out of men, and thus to dehumanize them.

_____

The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together, for it impliedas had been said at Nuremberg over and over again by the defendants and their counselsthat this new type of criminal, who is in actual facthostis generis humani,commits his crimes under circumstances that make it well-nigh impossible for him to know or to feel that he is doing wrong.

_____

Totalitarianism begins in contempt for what you have. The second step is the notion: Things must changeno matter how. Anything is better than what we have. Totalitarian rulers organize this kind of mass sentiment, and by organizing it they articulate it, and by articulating it they make the people somehow love it.They were told before, thou shalt not kill; and they didnt kill. Now they are told, thou shalt kill; andalthough they think its very difficult to kill, they do it because its now part of the code of behavior.

_____

The argument that we cannot judge if we were not present and involved ourselves seems to convince everyone everywhere, although it seems obvious that if it were true, neither the administration of justice nor the writing of history would ever be possible.

Hannah Arendt (movie trailer)

Why Read Hannah Arendt Now? by Richard J. Bernstein

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt

What Did Hannah Arendt Really Mean by the Banality of Evil? by Thomas White

Two Monsters of the French Revolution Who Were Consumed by PowerAnd Lost Their Heads on the Same Day by Lawrence W. Reed

What the Nazis Had in Common With Every Other Collectivist Regime of the 20th Century by Lawrence W. Reed

Excerpt from:
Hannah Arendts Chilling Thesis on Evil - Foundation for Economic Education

[Editors note: This is a version of an article published in the Out of Frame Newsletter, an email newsletter about the intersection of art, culture, and ideas. Sign up here to get it in your inbox.]

Since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian government has imposed harsh censorship on its citizens to restrict negative discussions of the war.

Several independent news outlets in Russia have shut down, or have censored coverage of the war. Government censorship affected foreign reporters too: In March, Russia blocked access to the BBC, the Voice of America, and other Western outlets. The BBC halted operations in Russia to avoid arrest.

Last month, a court in Kaliningrad ruled that news outlets were guilty of a criminal offense for publishing a list of Russian military casualties because it was "classified information."

According to The New York Times, Russia's war censorship laws passed in March "could make it a crime to simply call the war a 'war' the Kremlin says it is a 'special military operation' on social media or in a news article or broadcast."

Besides banning criticism of the war, the legislation also makes "calling on other countries to impose sanctions on Russia or protesting Russias invasion of Ukraine punishable by fines and years of imprisonment."

The Russian government arrested thousands in mass demonstrations when the war began, and Russians continue to be detained for protesting the conflict.

Earlier this month, a local politician in Moscow, Alexei Gorinov, was sentenced to seven years in prison for speaking against the war in a city council meeting. The BBC reported:

Judge Olesya Mendeleyeva ruled he had carried out his crime "based on political hatred" and had misled Russians, prompting them to "feel anxiety and fear" about the military campaign.

Attacks on the press and dissidents in Russia are not new. But the country had a "mostly uncensored" Internet according to the New York Timesthat was, until Moscow blocked Facebook and Instagram.

These abuses of power should show us the dangers of giving the government the authority to restrict freedom of speech. But the Kremlin's stated justification for the censorship should also serve as a more specific warning.

The main laws under which Russia's censorship is taking place, Law 31-FZ and 32-FZ, prohibit "public dissemination of knowingly false information about the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation" and "discrediting" the use of the Russian military.

That is the official language in the law. And although no liberal democracies currently engage in campaigns of naked state censorship like Russia's, the idea of banning "knowingly false information" is familiar to citizens of the West.

But what the situation in Russia should teach us is that the definition of "false" always lies with the censors. It may sound good to want to ban misinformation, or any other kind of "bad" speech, but deciding what fits these ambiguous categories will give the censors great opportunity for abuse.

In the words of economist Milton Friedman: "Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it."

Visit link:
What the War in Ukraine Can Teach Us about the Dangers of Censorship | Matt Hampton - Foundation for Economic Education