Displaying posts published in

June 2022

Iran: Towards a Summer of Discontent by Amir Taheri

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18585/iran-summer-discontent

The latest protests, however, appear to be different in a number of ways. First, the main theme, although not the immediately acknowledged one, is regime change.

So far such a move had been stalled because the regime’s many opponents regarded it as their second choice, each being its own first choice. That meant that each group would rather see the present regime remain in place to prevent a rival opposition group from replacing it.

Whether the protests continue or where they will end up it is too early to tell. But one thing is clear: something has snapped between the Khomeinist regime and many Iranians, producing a gap that can no longer be bridged with the usual slogans.

For the past two weeks a large number of Iranians, perhaps hundreds of thousands, have been taking part in protest marches in more than 100 cities across Iran to vent their anger against a system that they consider to be corrupt, incompetent and oppressive.

At the same time, the government is facing the threat of massive bread shortages later this year amid reports that wheat stocks have fallen to a record low while talks to purchase from Russia 6.2 million tons of wheat, more than half of Iran’s annual consumption, seem to have stalled.

Dismantle the D.C. Company Town It’s time that Americans faced up to the reality that their governing apparat is a corrupt, self-engorging Leviathan. By Roger Kimball

https://amgreatness.com/2022/06/04/dismantle-the-d-c-company-town/

Gertrude Stein famously warned that it was important to know how far to go when going too far. 

It pains me to admit that Democrats seem to have a far better sense of all that than do Republicans. Perhaps it’s because Democrats have a visceral appreciation of William Hazlitt’s observation that “those who lack delicacy hold us in their power.” The Democrats, that is to say, long ago became expert at the game of holding their opponents to standards that they themselves violate not just with impunity but with ostentatious glee. 

The news last week that Michael Sussmann was found not guilty by a D.C. jury of his ideological peers was another thumb in the eye of the American so-called system of justice. Scary-looking super-cop John Durham had indicted Sussmann for the same thing that brought down Trump’s flash-in-the-pan National Security Advisor Mike Flynn—lying to the FBI—but no one who has been paying attention thought the two men would be treated the same way. Flynn was close to Donald Trump, therefore he must be considered a sacrificial beast, someone to be made an example of, a pariah. And so he was. 

Sussmann, by contrast, was a covert employee of the Hillary Clinton campaign. He helped get the Russian Collusion Delusion going and lied to the FBI in the process. But he was on the side of the regime party, so, as Jonathan Turley observed as the Sussmann case unfolded, he was afforded every consideration while Flynn found himself ruined. In this tale of two trials, we got a textbook illustration of how you can deploy a two-tier system of justice in which, as George Orwell put it in Animal Farm: All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. 

Sure, it’s a contradiction. It doesn’t, intellectually, make sense. It also violates every canon of justice, which depends upon a publicly acknowledged ideal of impartiality. But in the larger, more cynical realm of the Thrasymachean dispensation of American regime politics circa 2022, it is just what the doctor ordered. Washington, D.C., is a company town. The company is the regime, the deep state, populated by swamp creatures battening at the public trough and fueled by the rancid clichés of identity politics. I think Roger Simon was right when he observed that Sussmann’s exoneration marked “the end of American justice as we know it.” (Actually, it was just another plaque on the tombstone; “American justice” has been an oxymoron for years.) 

Maher: “Toxic Positivity” And The Lack Of Shame and Judgment Has Led To The Decline Of Civilization By Ian Schwartz

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/06/04/maher_toxic_positivity_and_the_lack_of_shame_

On the Friday broadcast of his program ‘Real Time,’ during a discussion of homelessness and addiction, Maher highlighted several government-sponsored PSAs in cities like New York and San Francisco that encourage safe drug use as an example of societal decline. See photos of the adverts below.

“I think part of the problem with us not having a solution to this is there are people out there that heard you say ‘first-world country’ and went ‘How dare you?’ because part of the problem with losing civilization is when you fail to make judgments about how some things are better than others,” Maher said. “We have seen this over and over again. Nothing is better than anything else. Keeping women in burqas is just a different way to go. And it’s just not a different way to go. And having shit in the park, human feces, when you’re trying to have a little baseball game with your kids or something is just worse.”

Maher read a poster that encouraged people to feel “empowered” for “safely” using drugs: ‘Don’t be ashamed you are using.’

“Okay, that’s the first thing it says. Yes, this is part of the problem of losing civilization. Shame is part of life. We do this to everything. Toxic positivity. ‘Everything is positive.’ Everything is not positive. You should be ashamed that you are using, that might help you to stop,” the HBO host said.
“Remember defining deviancy downward, that phrase from Patrick Moynihan?” Maher asked his panel.

Bill Seeks to Muzzle Doctors Who Tell the Truth About COVID by Joseph Mercola

https://www.theepochtimes.com/bill-seeks-to-muzzle-doctors-who-tell-the-truth-about-covid_4447941.html

If these new proposed bills pass, your doctors could have their licenses taken away, simply by speaking the truth about the COVID fiasco. To appease bureaucrats, they would have to censor their thoughts about lockdowns and vaccines, and even avoid advising you about effective treatments.

Story at-a-glance
A California bill is now threatening to strip doctors of their medical licenses if they express medical views that the state does not agree with. California Assembly Bill 2098 designates “the dissemination or promotion of misinformation or disinformation related to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, or ‘COVID-19,’ as unprofessional conduct” warranting “disciplinary action” that could result in the loss of their medical license
Misinformation related to SARS-CoV-2 includes “false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.” But as far as what might constitute “misinformation” or “disinformation” is unclear and basically left open for interpretation by the state
Doctors have an ethical obligation to treat each patient as an individual, and to ensure each patient receives the safest and best care. Bill 2098 will turn doctors into government agents, leaving no one to advocate for patients’ health
California has also introduced six other bills seeking to enshrine tyranny into law, including bills to criminalize “amplification of harmful content,” create a centralized vaccination registry, strip funding from law enforcement that refuses to follow public health orders, mandate COVID jabs for school children, authorize minors to consent to vaccination, and require school districts to conduct routine COVID testing
If you live in California, please review these bills and VOTE NO

One of the most stunning parts of this pandemic has been the denial of basic science, and one of the most shocking developments from that has been the attack on medical doctors who try to set the record straight.

Our Fossil-Fuels Future By Robert Zubrin

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/our-fossil-fuels-future/

Alex Epstein explains why the world needs more fossil fuels.

Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, has delivered another knockout punch against Green ideology. Aptly entitled “Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas — Not Less,” Epstein’s new work includes the comprehensive factual case for fossil fuels as he presented it in his earlier book. He then proceeds to eviscerate the mental framework behind the war on fuel.

Epstein begins his discourse by identifying the “knowledge system” being used to perpetrate the anti-carbon crusade. He then very reasonably states that any judgment regarding the positive or negative nature of any phenomenon, including fossil-fuel use, should include consideration of both its pluses and minuses. He then describes the extraordinarily positive impact of fossil-fuel use on the development and maintenance of modern civilization. In particular, he focuses on the unprecedented gains in health, productivity, education, mobility, safety, life spans, leisure time, living standards, environmental quality, and practically any other index of human well-being one could mention. He does this with the help of a series of graphs, as follows.

In figure 1, he shows that, far from causing a climate catastrophe, fossil-fuel use has virtually ended climate catastrophes, with the number of climate-related deaths falling 98 percent in the last century. Epstein says this is due not to any marked improvement in the climate but rather to increased societal resiliency as a result of our growing fossil-fuel-enabled technological powers. For example, deaths due to extreme temperatures have been greatly reduced through effective home heating and air conditioning, and deaths due to famine have been virtually eliminated both by the abundance produced by fossil-fuel-driven fertilized and irrigated agriculture and by modern society’s fossil-fuel-enabled ability to rapidly transport food around the world. In addition, he says, CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere has accelerated the rate of plant growth worldwide. This is true, as shown by NASA satellite data. He could also have mentioned that warming has expanded the growing season, as shown by EPA data. (Climate alarmists never mention this, either, even though it is the strongest proof of the reality of warming. Guess why not.)

If Only We Could Turn Hillary Loose on the FBI Andrew McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/if-only-we-could-turn-hillary-loose-on-the-fbi/

If historical accountability now outweighs all concerns about due process, how could you do better than a Hillary Clinton trial?

‘Whither John Durham?” That is now the pressing question for every Russiagate watcher. Admittedly, the crowd of Russiagate watchers has grown smaller since Tuesday, when a Democrat-heavy jury in Washington, D.C., acquitted Michael Sussmann, the heavyweight Democratic lawyer, of Special Counsel Durham’s charge that Sussmann had lied to the FBI.

The answer, if we are to learn the central lesson of the Sussmann case, is simple: Indict Hillary Clinton.

But . . . for what?

I’ll resist the urge to say, “There’s always something,” which would be more a commentary on the career of the former secretary of state (and cattle-futures trader, travel-office-staff director, grand-jury amnesiac, “bimbo eruptions” scourge, pardons coordinator, voice of calm, suspender of disbelief, Russian “reset” visionary, Benghazi bungler, Muslim-movie maven, charity entrepreneur, and homebrew-server savant) than a real answer.

The truth is I have no idea whether Hillary has done anything indictable this time. Orchestrating the Trump–Russia collusion farce is icky politics and maybe even civil libel. But whether it violated the criminal law in some way is a tougher question.

I do know this, though: If you really want to get to the bottom of what is scandalous about Russiagate, there could be no surer way to do it than to indict that most ruthless of cutthroat, cold-blooded politicians and sit back and enjoy the show as she sets her phalanx of gladiator–lawyers on the FBI, the Justice Department, the intelligence agencies, and the Obama White House.

‘It Became Necessary to Destroy the Country to Save It’ By David P. Goldman

https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2022/05/30/it-became-necessary-to-destroy-the-country-to-save-it-n1602025

Peter Arnett’s celebrated quote — “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it” — was a fabrication during the Vietnam War but has a macabre application to Ukraine. American fecklessness and Russian rapacity together will leave a grease spot where Ukraine used to be. It was all tragically, idiotically unnecessary.

I argued in 2008 and on many subsequent occasions, including the February 2014 note in PJ Media reposted below. The obvious course of action in Ukraine was to permit its people to vote for a divorce, as the Czechs and Slovaks did. Instead we elected to keep the NATO option open for Ukraine, knowing that this was a red line for Russia. Never mind that Putin is a wicked fellow; he is a predictably wicked fellow with a well-defined understanding of Russian national interest, and his response to Ukraine’s prospective NATO membership was entirely predictable.

After three months of nearly-unanimous media predictions of the collapse of Russia, it now appears that the Russian army is close to controlling the Donbas. Extricating it will be difficult if not impossible. The result, as Henry Kissinger suggested at Davos last week, will be (eventually) a peace in which Ukraine cedes territory to Russia. All the “don’t appease Putin-Hitler” rhetoric will simply make us feel shabbier when we make the deal. We should feel shabby. We screwed this up on the grand scale.

Our bathetic outpouring of sympathy for Ukraine served mainly to obscure the ugly fact that Russia has better strategic weapons than we do (hypervelocity missiles and the S-400/500 air defense systems). No doubt the Russian army is corrupt, as Western commentators aver, but not so corrupt by orders of magnitude as our Pentagon, which pays top dollar for obsolete weapons while Russia and China innovate. The Javelin and Switchblade and Stinger are fine toys, but the West remains in fear of Russian nuclear weapons–as well we should. The Biden Administration won’t sent long-range missiles to Ukraine because it fears, correctly, that Ukraine might use them to attack targets deep inside Russia and start a broader war.

Corporate Wokeness Is the Last Refuge of Scoundrels By Dan McLaughlin

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/corporate-wokeness-is-the-last-refuge-of-scoundrels/

On Wednesday, Sheryl Sandberg — chief operating officer of Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, and author of the 2013 female-empowerment book Lean In — told Fortune that she was resigning because of the fierce urgency of the moment with the impending overturning of Roe v. Wade: “This is a really important moment for women. This is a really important moment for me to be able to do more with my philanthropy, with my foundation.”

This is what is known as getting ahead of the story. The very next day, the Wall Street Journal reported the real story:

In reality, it was the culmination of a yearslong process in which one of the world’s most powerful executives became increasingly burned out and disconnected from the mega-business that she was instrumental in building. More recently, there was a fresh irritation: Earlier this year, The Wall Street Journal contacted Meta about two incidents from several years ago in which Ms. Sandberg, the chief operating officer, pressed a U.K. tabloid to shelve an article about her former boyfriend, Activision Blizzard Inc. Chief Executive Bobby Kotick, and a 2014 temporary restraining order against him. The episode dovetailed with a company investigation into Ms. Sandberg’s activities, which hasn’t been previously reported, including a review of her use of corporate resources to help plan her coming wedding to Tom Bernthal, a consultant, the people said. The couple has been engaged since 2020.

‘Wannsee’: Where the ‘Final Solution’ of the Holocaust was pushed – review Book recounts battle about how fast to exterminate Jews By Janet Levy

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-708406

They met on January 20, 1942, at a luxury villa on park-like grounds overlooking Lake Wannsee, a recreation site a half-hour’s drive from Berlin. Built by a wealthy industrialist, the villa was now held by an SS foundation. They were 15 top Nazi officials – among them nine lawyers and eight with doctorates. In that idyllic setting, in a meeting that lasted 90 minutes, they decided the “Jewish question” – how to deport 11 million people to labor camps and kill any who survived. If they differed, it was on the details. Never on the intent – mass murder.

Holocaust expert Peter Longerich’s illuminating book Wannsee: The Road to the Final Solution begins by describing the meeting on that wintry day. The description brings out Nazi cynicism and cold-bloodedness: convening at a pleasure spot to plan genocide. Longerich draws on the only remaining record of the meeting: the “minutes” prepared and distributed by Adolf Eichmann with instructions for destruction after review. 

One minister disobeyed, and his copy was discovered by the US Army in 1945. The document summarizes the main lines of discussion and the decisions reached; it estimates Jewish populations in 30 countries, sets out specific territories where fit Jews should be made to work in labor gangs subjected to “natural wastage”; and it says survivors would be disposed of in an unspecified manner.

The participants at the Wannsee Conference, called by Gen. Reinhard Heydrich, broadly represented all facets of the Reich. They did not actually initiate the Holocaust; it had already been haphazardly set in motion by disparate factions of the Nazi machinery. What they achieved was consensus. Those horrified by plans for exterminating Jews were pressured into compliance as evidence of their commitment to the Nazi goal of purifying the German volk.

Reichstag president Hermann Göring had made Heydrich, chief of the Reich Security Head Office (RSHA), directly responsible for the “Final Solution.” But even before the Wannsee Conference, deportations had begun, at Fuhrer Adolf Hitler’s behest, in October 1941. The first death camps had already been built. Agencies of the Reich were carrying out uncoordinated campaigns of mass murder and competing to propose radical solutions. The conference defined “Jewishness” for the Nazis’ base purposes, decided on what to do with half-Jews, and created an RSHA-led master plan for eliminating Jews. It channeled intention into a systematic extermination program.

Right from the time they came to power in 1933, the Nazis instituted discriminatory policies to remove Jews from public life, boycott their businesses, impose curfews on them, force them into labor, and harass, humiliate, intimidate and exploit them. Enacted in 1935 and imposed the next year, the Nuremberg Laws included statutes that forbade marriage and sexual relations between Jews and Germans and decreed that only those of pure German blood were eligible to be citizens of the Reich.

According to Longerich’s book, the conference should be seen in the context of two significant factors: the outbreak of the Second World War and the rivalry between Heydrich and Heinrich Himmler, another architect of the Holocaust.

To Biden Administration on Iran: Do Not Leave Americans, Allies, in the Dark by Majid Rafizadeh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18582/us-iran-allies

“By every indication, the Biden Administration appears to have given away the store. The administration appears to have agreed to lift sanctions that were not even placed on Iran for its nuclear activities in the first place, but instead because of its ongoing support for terrorism and its gross abuses of human rights. The nuclear limitations in this new deal appear to be significantly less restrictive than the 2015 nuclear deal, which was itself too weak, and will sharply undermine U.S. leverage to secure an actually ‘longer and stronger’ deal. What is more, the deal appears likely to deepen Iran’s financial and security relationship with Moscow and Beijing, including through arms sales.” — 49 U.S. Senators, press release, March 14, 2022.

Now, Iran’s negotiating team — with which U.S. interests are being negotiated by the same Russia currently trying to crush the Western-backed democracy, Ukraine — has excluded not only the U.S., but also those countries directly impacted by the Iran’s nuclear breakout and terrorism: the latest countries it is devouring: Syria and Iraq.

The Biden administration must not exclude the U.S. regional allies and the American people from the ongoing negotiations with the Iranian regime and keep them in the dark: they are the ones directly affected by any “deal.”

How could America allow Israel — not to mention itself — to be excluded from the negotiations to lift sanctions on the Iranian regime when the ruling mullahs have made it clear that their top ideological priority is to eradicate the Jewish state and “wipe Israel off the map”? Recently, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, known as the “butcher of Tehran” after reportedly being involved in the 1988 massacre of nearly 30,000 political prisoners, openly called again for the destruction of Israel:

“This great movement that we are witnessing today in the form of protests is a symbol of the solidarity of the Muslim people that will lead to the destruction of the Zionist regime.”