If Mass Migration Is So Magic, Why Is The World On Fire?

Democracy, Globalism, IMMIGRATION, Lebanon, Multiculturalism, Politics, Taxation, Welfare

“The simplest way to make the world richer,” lectures Robert Guest of the open-borders Economist magazine, “is to allow more people to move. Yet the politics of migration has never been more toxic,” he laments.

While extolling endless migration to the West, in the same, November 16th-22nd issue, the magazine depicts a world beset by unrest:

“It is hard to keep up with the protest movements under way around the world. … only the global unrest of the late 1960s was similar in scope.”

The writers point to a movements that “seem strikingly unconnected and spontaneous.”

The Economist, moreover, agrees that it is almost impossible to impose “a pattern on these seemingly random events”—in Lebanon, a tax on WhatsApp; in Hong Kong, “proposed laws allowing the extradition of criminal suspects to China”; in Britain, Brexit, in affluent Chile a sense of inequality.

Inching slowly toward stating the truth, it is eventually conceded that the global unrest is affecting “well-functioning democracies” as well.

In fact, “a related phenomenon [in the unrest equation] is the weakening of the bargain at the heart of Western-style democracy—that losers, who may represent a majority of the popular vote, will accept rule by the winners until the next election. The millions on the streets do not accept the patience that trade-off demands.”

A weakening of the bargain at the heart of Western-style democracy” why? Because flooding western democracies with foreign people has created societies that share no bonds other than the quest to extract as much as possible from the political process.

* Image courtesy The Economist, Polaris/eyevine.

New Column (Updated 1/26): Queen Elizabeth Beats Hollywood And The Stumblebum Sussexes

Britain, Celebrity, Communism, Etiquette

The new column is “Queen Elizabeth Beats Hollywood And The Stumblebum Sussexes.” It’s on American Greatness,  WND.COM and The Unz Review.

An excerpt:

His wife, a hero of sorts only in the TV series “Suits,” had hightailed it to Canada, leaving Harry Windsor, formerly known as Prince Harry, to deliver a concession speech.

Make no mistake—no matter the moola they rake in, Harry and Meghan Markle have been sorely defeated and deflated.

Earlier in January 2020, the stumblebum Sussexes had smugly announced to the public that they “planned to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.” The unavoidable implication of that sleight-of-hand was that “this institution” (the monarchy) was just not “woke” enough for the two’s exquisitely honed sensibilities.

Gallantly has Harry tried since to make his subjects believe that it is he, not Meghan Markle—his meddlesome, divisive, American wife—who had attempted, and failed miserably, to outsmart Queen Elizabeth II.

But the crass and callous rollout production, lacking in etiquette and contemptuous of royal protocol, fell flat.

So deeply silly was the Sussexes Instagram statement, that it had brainy royal correspondents and members of the queen’s bench snickering that Harry and his Hollywood wife must have been getting bad advice from friends across the Atlantic, who knew nothing about the workings of the British monarchy.

A woman of impeccable class, HM the Queen, aged 93, handled the Markle tantrum with great kindness—even though the couple had informed the world of their antics, before apprising the queen and other members of the royal family.

Wrapping up Markle’s failed brinkmanship, Harry unleashed a load of bafflegab, peppered with oddly fatalistic phrases such as, “after so many years of challenges,” “there really was no other option,” and, sadly, “it had come to” this.

Translated: After two years of royal toil, my wife had had enough. She cracked under the duress of being dressed to the nines, served the food of her fancy, watched over and catered to, housed in a palace of her own design, and showered with her heart’s desire and a title.

These were paltry rewards for Markle’s herculean efforts. In a word, Meghan prefers the life of a celebrity to that of a public servant. …

… Once upon a time, a dolt from Tinseltown imagined she was a match for the queen of England. …

The End.

… READ THE REST. The new column is “Queen Elizabeth Beats Hollywood And The Stumblebum Sussexes.” It’s on American Greatness,  WND.COM and The Unz Review.

* Image courtesy of The Unz Review.

UPDATE (1/26/020): Shallow. 

Then there’s the radical, leftist perspective of Mr. and Mrs. Markle and their friends. For them, being “exposed to the world” means being exposed to “Obama, Winfrey, etc.,” and to have “no one [that] doesn’t return your call or accept an invitation to lunch.”

MORE: “Family business: Prince Harry, Meghan Markle bolt for the exit. Can you really blame them?”

Why Is Glenn Greenwald In Brazil, In The First Place? Don’t Ask The Washington Examiner

Critique, English, Homeland Security, Intelligence, Journalism, Media

Truly ghastly writing from Washington Examiner editorial staff, most of them still in short-pants, is nothing new.

This appallingly written, dog’s breakfast of a column,The arrest of Glenn Greenwald reminds us what actual press persecution looks like,” repeatedly states the obvious: American journalists know not what it is to work under duress, bereft of freedom of the press.

Conversely, Glenn Greenwald, an American journalist based in Brazil, does.

But the worst infraction of journalism committed by the writer is the man’s lack of intellectual curiosity and shallow knowledge about the object of his justified defense, Glenn Greenwald.

In trying to make a point about the freedoms the American press enjoys, as opposed to the lack thereof in Brazil, the author, a “deputy contributors editor and commentary writer,” appears to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that, after helping Edward Snowden expose the U.S. National Security Agency, “the world’s largest surveillance organization,” Mr. Greenwald came under the scrutiny of the U.S. government, and is likely “a target of U.S. surveillance.”

It is still unclear whether Greenwald may return to the U.S. without risking arrest in the homeland.

How’s that for irony? This journalistic void renders ridiculous the outrage evinced by the writer (of “The arrest of Glenn Greenwald reminds us what actual press persecution looks like”) against Brazil’s authoritarian president, considering that Greenwald might be arrested on return to the U.S.

Via the Committee to Protect Journalists:

Glenn Greenwald would like to go home to the United States, at least for a visit. But the Guardian journalist and blogger is afraid to do so. He still has material and unpublished stories from his contacts with fugitive whistleblower Edward Snowden that he believes U.S. authorities would love to get their hands on. The nine-hour detention and interrogation of Greenwald’s Brazilian partner David Miranda by British security services at London’s Heathrow airport in August has only compounded his fears.
“I have been told by pretty much everybody I have asked, including lawyers for the Guardian, my personal lawyer, lawyers I trust, political people who are well connected that it would be very ill-advised for me to travel back to the United States right now because the chances that I would be arrested are something more than trivial,” Greenwald told CPJ in Rio de Janeiro.

To the Daily Beast, Greenwald said this:

“I’ve had lots of prominent [American] political and media figures calling for my arrest and prosecution and strongly suggesting, if not outright stating, that what I am doing is criminal.”

****

Other than from the title of the column, “The arrest of Glenn Greenwald reminds us what actual press persecution looks like,” and the embedded hyperlinks meant to be followed by the reader—the latter is none the wiser about the fate that befell poor Mr. Greenwald.

The rules of writing are that you tell readers in your lede paragraph about the thing upon which you’ve based your column. “The Five Ws” of journalism are:

What happened?
Who did that?
When did it take place?
Where did it take place?
Why did that happen?

Then there are what I call the “really-really” qualifications.

Greenwald is said to be “coming from a far-left perspective.” What a deeply silly statement. It’s like writing, “very-very left wing.” Who does that?

Bad journos who are subconsciously trying to set themselves in a camp other than the “far-left” do that.

Bad journos who are trying to emphasize their fair-mindedness do that.

Greenwald is a fair-minded liberal. That’s it. He is certainly not a far-left journalist.

There’s more white noise, but I’m tired of documenting shit.

 

* Glenn Greenwald courtesy REUTERS/Sergio Moraes

Is This Impeachment Procession To The Senate Solemn Enough For Ya?

Constitution, Democrats, Donald Trump, Founding Fathers

Dumb Dems delivering articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Another moment in the farce they’ve tried so hard to turn into a “solemn,” faith-filled, Founders-invoked event.  This from the party of faith-hating, Founding Fathers disparaging, Constitution-defying hypocrites.