Posted tagged ‘Insanity’

Wife of Israeli PM to be indicted on charges of misusing public funds

September 7, 2017

Wife of Israeli PM to be indicted on charges of misusing public funds, DEBKAfile, September 7, 2017

(Indictment for ordering “expensive meals? Insanity. — DM)

Israel’s attorney general, Avichai Mandelblit, informed the prime minister’s wife Sara Netanyahu Thursday evening that he will indict her on charges of misusing public funds by ordering meals from expensive restaurants costing tens of thousands of shekels.

The Netanyahu family later issued a statement saying that the claims are absurd and false, calling her a brave and honest woman who had not done anything improper.

Crash at the Four-Way Intersectionality

May 7, 2017

Crash at the Four-Way Intersectionality, Power LineSteven Hayward, May 7, 2017

(I must be getting very old. I still remember when men were meant to be “real men,” women were meant to be “real women” and little furry creatures from Alpa Centauri were meant to be “real little furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.” Hence, I find the concepts discussed in the article incomprehensible.– DM)

Intersections are just a bad idea for the left. They should stick to one-way streets. Those are hard enough for them to manage. Meanwhile, pass the popcorn.

****************************

“Intersectionality” is supposed to be the intellectual/political clearing house for each branch of the leftist Victim-Grievance-Industrial-Complex (VGIC for short), the idea being that combining multiple perspectives on victimhood provides some kind of socio-political multiplier effect. Think of it as Keynesian victimology, except instead of ruining the economy with reckless deficit spending we ruin the lives of minorities with reckless deficit philosophy. But the various certified victim classes keep having minor fender-benders, but sometimes total their all-wheezle-drive vehicles, at nearly every intersection, chiefly because they don’t recognize stoplights.

One recent smashup happened over in Oxford, where some officious unit of official sensitivity decreed that not making eye contact constituted an act of racism (“invisible man” and all that). Except that people from the autistic community spoke up, pointing out that people with autism often can’t make eye contact because of their condition. Whereupon the officious unit of official sensitivity at Oxford profusely apologized for its insensitivity, and withdrew the previous moral unction against eye-contact bigots.

But this is minor league stuff compared to the ruckus caused by l’affaire Tuvel. This refers to the case of Rebecca Tuvel, a youngish professor of philosophy at Rhodes College in Memphis (where I have visited), who recently committed the blunder of publishing “In Defense of Transracialism” in Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy.

Here’s the abstract of the article:

Former NAACP chapter head Rachel Dolezal’s attempted transition from the white to the black race occasioned heated controversy. Her story gained notoriety at the same time that Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner graced the cover of Vanity Fair, signaling a growing acceptance of transgender identity. Yet criticisms of Dolezal for misrepresenting her birth race indicate a widespread social perception that it is neither possible nor acceptable to change one’s race in the way it might be to change one’s sex. Considerations that support transgenderism seem to apply equally to transracialism. Although Dolezal herself may or may not represent a genuine case of a transracial person, her story and the public reaction to it serve helpful illustrative purposes.

(Turns out this is the theme of an entire book Tuvel is working on. See her faculty page at Rhodes College.)

Well, all hell broke loose over this article. Because the trans-community apparently doesn’t yet recognize trans-racialism, and Tuvel apparently never got the memo. The critics swarmed, issued a blistering open letter about how “harmful” the article is and demanding that Hypatia retract it—which Hypatia promptly did, issuing their own groveling apology that you have to read not to believe. The original link to Hypatia’s apology has gone dead (hopefully because they realize their mega-beclowning), but philosopher Brian Leiter captured it for us at his well-regarded Leiter Reports blog. Here’s just one excerpt:

We, the members of Hypatia’s Board of Associate Editors, extend our profound apology to our friends and colleagues in feminist philosophy, especially transfeminists, queer feminists, and feminists of color, for the harms that the publication of the article on transracialism has caused. The sources of those harms are multiple, and include: descriptions of trans lives that perpetuate harmful assumptions and (not coincidentally) ignore important scholarship by trans philosophers; the practice of deadnaming, in which a trans person’s name is accompanied by a reference to the name they were assigned at birth; the use of methodologies which take up important social and political phenomena in dehistoricized and decontextualized ways, thus neglecting to address and take seriously the ways in which those phenomena marginalize and commit acts of violence upon actual persons; and an insufficient engagement with the field of critical race theory. Perhaps most fundamentally, to compare ethically the lived experience of trans people (from a distinctly external perspective) primarily to a single example of a white person claiming to have adopted a black identity creates an equivalency that fails to recognize the history of racial appropriation, while also associating trans people with racial appropriation. We recognize and mourn that these harms will disproportionately fall upon those members of our community who continue to experience marginalization and discrimination due to racism and cisnormativity.

And it goes on this way for seven more lugubrious paragraphs. (But I did learn about “deadnaming” here, for which I am grateful. I’m going to start working on uses for it right away. Would “former Clinton campaign strategist” qualify as “deadnaming”?)

Of course the real reason the trans-community objects to the Tuvel hypothesis is that it threatens to expose the absurdity of the view that gender is purely subjective and has no connection to biology. Now, it is possible that Prof. Tuvel is engaged in an entire career-long emulation of the Sokal Hoax, in which case she’s doing a great service and deserves to be advanced to full tenure right away. Or she may mean it. Either way she’s done a wonderful public service.

Intersections are just a bad idea for the left. They should stick to one-way streets. Those are hard enough for them to manage. Meanwhile, pass the popcorn.

 

A crazy fat kid and his nuclear toys

April 4, 2017

A crazy fat kid and his nuclear toys, Washington TimesWesley Pruden, April 3, 2017

(Kim Chi-un, I mean Kim Jong-un, is fat and his claimed craziness lets us laugh at him; at least until he unleashes an EMP attack on America. However, he is probably saner than some members of the U.S. Congress. Inscrutable? Unpredictable? Sure. Acting crazy has worked for him and his predecessors for years; he would be “crazy” to appear to be sane. Rationality would make him predictable and unpredictability is an asset in war. — DM)

Kim Jong-un may be “a crazy fat kid” with a goofy haircut, but he is doing what his father and his grandfather never could. With nuclear weapons to play with, he frightens the West enough to make it start thinking about doing something about the most dangerous crazy fat kid on earth.

By some reliable intelligence estimates North Korea now has eight nuclear weapons, but no way to deliver them farther than the Sea of Japan, but they’re working on it. They have to get the size of the bomb down to manageable weight and girth before an intercontinental missile could reach the California coast with it.

What seemed absurd only a few years ago is thought to be soon in the crazy fat kid’s box of toys. The failure of the early missiles was easy to mock, like the purple prose of the propaganda artists in Pyongyang. But Kim and his scientists, believed to be working with the help of Iran and the nuclear-weapons program saved by Barack Obama, are moving steadily to full membership in the club of nations with “the bomb.”

Kim has the family DNA and the brutal Marxist ambitions of his father and grandfather, but little of their appreciation of the rational. A recent defector from North Korea, Thae Young Ho, the deputy North Korean ambassador to London, says “Kim Jong-un is a man who will do anything beyond the normal imagination.” He ordered an uncle and his half-brother “terminated with extreme prejudice” — as in, dead — because he reckoned them threats to his own life. He knows that when the regime goes, he goes with it. That’s the way it works in a satrap like North Korea. Terror is the constant companion to the dictator who lives by the whip and the gun.

Kim lives a life of sumptuous ease in Pyongyang, surrounded by sycophants and the pleasures of the table, adding to his girth with a rich diet of imported groceries while millions of his countrymen live close to starvation. He is particularly vain for a fat man, and Sen. John McCain’s recent description of him as “a crazy fat kid” stirred him to rage.

Mr. McCain had told an interviewer at MSNBC, the cable-TV channel, that “the crazy fat kid running North Korea is far worse than some of history’s worst dictators. He’s not rational. We’re not dealing with someone like Joseph Stalin, who had a certain rationality to his barbarity.”

The Korean Central News Agency, the mouthpiece of the Kim regime, accused Mr. McCain of “hurting the dignity of the country and the supreme leadership of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,” i.e., North Korea. When Sen. Ted Cruz joined other conservatives to file legislation to put North Korea on the list of state sponsors of terrorism again, he was denounced as a dignity-damager, too, and promised all manner of punishment.

The senators, said the news agency, “will have to bitterly experience the disastrous consequences to be entailed by their reckless tongue-lashing and then any regret for it will come too late. The revolutionary forces of [North Korea] with its nuclear force as its pivot will fulfill its sacred mission of devotedly defending its supreme leadership representing the destiny and life of its people by dealing with merciless sledgehammer blows at those daring to hurt the dignity of the supreme leadership.”

All that merciless work with a sledgehammer seems a little wasteful of resources to punish two mere senators, worthy as those gents may be (but the example of sledgehammer rhetoric might be instructive to the pundits in the West who have done their darnedest to take down Donald Trump and still haven’t managed to put their rhetoric in the killer shade of purple).

Nevertheless, a genuine threat lies beneath the entertaining bluster and braggadocio. Adm. Scott Swift, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, tells NBC News that American officials are particularly wary of Kim Jong-un’s latest threats to hit an American city with a nuclear bomb.

“They have the nuclear capability,” the admiral says. “They’ve demonstrated that. Where they’re going with the miniaturization of that, whether they can actually weaponize a missile, that’s what’s driving the current concern.”

President Trump told London’s Financial Times on Monday that “something has to be done about North Korea.” Secretary of Defense James Mattis, once called “Mad Dog Mattis,” says North Korea “has got to be stopped.” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson says a military response is “on the table.”

President Trump entertains Chinese President Xi Jinping this week at Mar-A-Lago, and he’ll have a lot to tell him. But if President Xi can’t make Kim behave, somebody else will have to do it, and soon. Scary to think about. It’s even scarier to think about not doing anything.

Government Says Wearing “Don’t Tread on Me” Insignia Might be Unlawful Racial Harassment

August 5, 2016

Government Says Wearing “Don’t Tread on Me” Insignia Might be Unlawful Racial Harassment, Power LinePaul Mirengoff, August 5, 2016

Instead of summarily dismissing this complaint, the EEOC concluded “in light of the ambiguity in the current meaning of this symbol, we find that Complainant’s claim must be investigated to determine the specific context in which [the hat wearer] displayed the symbol in the workplace.” It noted that “in June 2014, assailants with connections to white supremacist groups draped the bodies of two murdered police officers with the Gadsden flag during their Las Vegas, Nevada shooting spree.”

The argument is laughable. Muslims have shouted passages from the Koran while killing Americans. Does this mean that if someone complains about a Muslim carrying the Koran to work the EEOC will investigate “the context” in which [he] carries the Koran?

********************

The Gadsden flag dates back to the Revolutionary War. It depicts a rattlesnake coiled and ready to strike, along with the words “DONT [sic] TREAD ON ME.”

The flag was designed by Christopher Gadsden, a delegate to the Continental Congress and a brigadier general in war that made the U.S. independent. In modern times, it has been used by the Tea Party and by supporters of the U.S. national soccer team.

Eugene Volokh reports that when an employee of a private company wore a hat with the “Don’t Tread on Me” insignia to work, a co-worker complained to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that wearing the cap constituted racial harassment on the part of the employer, which apparently did not ban the hat. The employee said he found the cap to be racially offensive to African Americans because the flag containing the slogan was designed by Christopher Gadsden, a “slave trader & owner of slaves.”

The argument is laughable. The Declaration of Independence was written by a slave owner. Does quoting it constitute racial harassment? Plenty of slave owners participated in the drafting and enactment of the U.S. Constitution. Is it racial harassment for the U.S. to abide (to the extent it still does) by the Constitution?

Instead of summarily dismissing this complaint, the EEOC concluded “in light of the ambiguity in the current meaning of this symbol, we find that Complainant’s claim must be investigated to determine the specific context in which [the hat wearer] displayed the symbol in the workplace.” It noted that “in June 2014, assailants with connections to white supremacist groups draped the bodies of two murdered police officers with the Gadsden flag during their Las Vegas, Nevada shooting spree.”

The argument is laughable. Muslims have shouted passages from the Koran while killing Americans. Does this mean that if someone complains about a Muslim carrying the Koran to work the EEOC will investigate “the context” in which [he] carries the Koran?

No it does not. The EEOC isn’t articulating a theory of workplace harassment; it is cracking down on political speech.

Everyone understands that “Don’t tread on me” is an anti-government slogan. Gen. Gasdsen used it in opposition to what he considered the tyranny of the British government. Tea Party activists use it in opposition to what they consider the tyranny of the liberal U.S. government. (Soccer enthusiasts presumably use it because it’s cool).

Now, the government is going to determine whether an employer violates the law by permitting an employee to wear a hat with this anti-government slogan. By doing so, it treads on our liberty and validates the concern of Tea Party activists, and many others, that we are drifting towards tyranny.

Volokh examines the First Amendment implications of the EEOC’s abuse of state power:

Imagine that you are a reasonable employer. You don’t want to restrict employee speech any more than is necessary, but you also don’t want to face the risk of legal liability for allowing speech that the government might label “harassing.”

An employee comes to you, complaining that a coworker’s wearing a “Don’t Tread on Me” cap — or having an “All Lives Matter” bumper sticker on a car parked in the employee lot, or “Stop Illegal Immigration” sign on the coworker’s cubicle wall — constitutes legally actionable “hostile environment harassment,” in violation of federal employment law. The employee claims that in “the specific context” (perhaps based on what has been in the news, or based on what other employees have been saying in lunchroom conversations), this speech is “racially tinged” or “racially insensitive.”

Would you feel pressured, by the risk of a lawsuit and of liability, into suppressing speech that expresses such viewpoints? Or would you say, “Nope, I’m not worried about the possibility of liability, I’ll let my employees keep talking”? (Again, the question isn’t what you may do as a matter of your own judgment about how you would control a private workplace; the question is whether the government is pressuring you to suppress speech that conveys certain viewpoints.)

The EEOC’s abusive approach might also limit speech about an election campaign:

Say someone wears “Trump/Pence 2016” gear in the workplace, or displays a bumper sticker on his car in the work parking lot, or displays such a sign on his cubicle wall, or just says on some occasions that he’s voting for Trump. He doesn’t say any racial or religious slurs about Hispanics or Muslims, and doesn’t even express any anti-Hispanic or anti-Muslim views (though even such views, I think, should be protected by the First Amendment against the threat of government-imposed liability).

But in “context,” a coworker complains, such speech conveys a message “tinged” with racial or religious hostility, or is racially or religiously “insensitive.” The coworker threatens to sue. Again, say you are an employer facing such a threat. Would you feel pressured by the risk of liability to restrict the pro-Trump speech?

I think many employers would.

Now permit me to quote myself. The other day, I wrote:

[I]n the aftermath of the Freddie Gray trials, we see the same imperative of outcomes that drives the war on standards prompting stirrings for something potentially more disturbing — an attack on liberty.

In “context,” as the EEOC likes to say, its stance on “Don’t Tread on Me” is another example of how far-fetched claims of racial injustice can become the platform for an attack on liberty.

Border Control vs. Gun Control

June 18, 2016

Border Control vs. Gun Control, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, June 17, 2016

The Pulse night club massacre was the latest in a series of Islamic terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, quite a few of which have succeeded, while others have been foiled. These attacks have used a variety of weapons: box cutters, knives, pistols, pressure cookers and rifles. There is a sharp partisan divide with respect to how such terrorist attacks should be viewed.

Republicans say that we should try harder to keep potential terrorists out of the country. Since we have no practical way to vet immigrants, and, in any event, Islamic extremists tend to be second generation Muslims like Omar Mateen, the only realistic way to do this is by reducing, or suspending altogether, immigration from Muslim-dominated countries. This is Donald Trump’s proposal.

That would be a radical departure from present practice. Senator Jeff Sessions’ Senate subcommittee has released this chart, which shows that the Obama administration will soon have issued one million green cards to immigrants from Islamic countries. Click to enlarge:

Green cards

Sessions’ office adds this explanation:

Between FY 2013 and FY 2014, the number of green cards issued to migrants from Muslim-majority countries increased dramatically – from 117,423 in FY 2013, to 148,810 in FY 2014, a nearly 27 percent increase. Throughout the Obama Administration’s tenure, the United States has issued green cards to an average of 138,669 migrants from Muslim-majority countries per year, meaning that it is nearly certain the United States will have issued green cards to at least 1.1 million migrants from Muslim-majority countries on the President’s watch. It has also been reported that migration from Muslim-majority countries represents the fastest growing class of migrants.

Notably, the 832,014 figure does not include temporary, nonimmigrant visas issued to migrants who come to the United States simply to work, nor does it include those who have come to the United States on temporary visas and overstayed their authorized period of admission.

Among those receiving green cards are individuals admitted to the United States as refugees, who are required to apply for adjustment to Lawful Permanent Resident (green card) status within 1 year of admission. A green card entitles recipients to access federal benefits, lifetime residency, work authorization, and a direct route to becoming a U.S. citizen.

Why are we doing this? When did we vote for it? Who decided that it was a good idea to import, for example, 102,000 Pakistanis? A few of them are doctors and so on, but what about the rest? Why do we need them? We know the downside, what is the upside?

There are 37,000 Somalis on the list. Hardly any of these are physicians, scientists, etc., and most have been shipped to my home state. Why? More than 50% of Somali-American men in Minnesota are not in the labor force. On what theory does this benefit the United States? I have never seen such a rationale articulated.

No doubt the majority of these million-plus Muslims are good people. But no one questions that some percentage of them will turn out to be terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Or their sons and daughters will be. No one knows what that proportion is, but even if it is small, the risk is large. Why are we taking it?

Democrats don’t think this way at all. They say it is impossible to know who will turn out to be a terrorist, and therefore, the best we can do is to make sure that would-be terrorists don’t have guns. The solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism (not that any Democrat admits that Islamic terrorism is a problem) is gun control.

To support this interpretation of events, Democrats portray Islamic terrorists as indistinguishable from crazy people who commit similar outrages–people like Seung-Hui Cho, Adam Lanza, Eric Harris and Charles Whitman. Islamic terror, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tell us, has nothing to do with Islam. It is just random insanity. On that theory, it is pointless to keep out any category of immigrants, and preventing future terrorist attacks mass murder incidents is pretty much hopeless. All we can do is try to prevent murderers from obtaining firearms (or certain firearms, anyway) so that their victims might be fewer in number.

And yet…there does seem to be something going on here. David French reminds us of what has happened, just during the last two years:

* From April to June, 2014, Ali Muhammed Brown killed four Americans on a “mission of vengeance” against the United States.

* On September 25, 2014, Alton Nolen beheaded an Oklahoma woman with a knife. His social media pages were covered with evidence of jihadist leanings and motivations.

* On May 3, 2015, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi attacked an exhibit of Mohammed images in Garland, Texas. They wounded a security officer, but police killed them before they were able to carry out mass murder.

* On July 16, 2015, Mohammad Abdulazeez killed five people at two Chattanooga recruiting stations. FBI director James Comey declared that Abdulazeez was “inspired/motivated” by terrorist propaganda.

* On November 4, 2015, Faisal Mohammed went on an ISIS-inspired stabbing spree — wounding four — before he was killed by campus police.

* On December 2, 2015, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik pledged allegiance to ISIS then killed 14 people and wounded 21 at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, Calif.

* On January 8, 2015, Edward Archer pledged himself to ISIS and attempted to assassinate a Philadelphia police officer. The wounded officer chased down and apprehended Archer before he could commit any other acts of violence.

* On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen pledged himself to ISIS and killed 49 people and wounded 53 at a gay nightclub in Orlando.

The Europeans could add many more to that list. Somehow, the random insanity theory doesn’t seem to fit.

Moreover, we now know that Omar Mateen’s wife–who, like so many Islamic radicals, grew up wealthy–knew about his plans for mass murder in the name of Allah, accompanied him when he scoped out murder venues and bought ammunition, and exchanged texts with him as he carried out his “mission.” And it came out today that Mateen’s brother in law refuses to say whether he knew about Mateen’s plan for jihad.

Consider the other mass murderers who, liberals say, were just like Mateen and the many other Islamic terrorists. Did Adam Lanza’s relatives know about his plans? Did they help him carry them out? Of course not. Lanza’s plan included murdering his mother. It is only Islamic terrorists whose cries of “Allahu Akbar!” as they open fire are joined in by accomplices and supporters. This isn’t random insanity, it is a global movement.

Those are arguments for immigration control. How about the Democrats’ arguments for more gun control? Would their proposals do any good?

The Democrats want to ban semi-automatic rifles, but only if they are black. (There is a funny Twitter meme–a picture of an AR-15 that says, “It’s because I’m black, isn’t it?”) This is an amazingly dumb idea. Rifles are the least popular murder weapons, ranking well below blunt objects, knives, shotguns and bare hands. Democrats say: but you can kill so many, so fast, with a rifle! News flash: you can pull the trigger on a pistol just as fast as on a rifle, and, unless you are 50 yards or more distant, which is never the case in a mass murder situation, the pistol is just as lethal.

Democrats also want anyone on the FBI’s no-fly list to be barred from buying guns. Intuitively, that sounds like a good idea. But the first problem is that the no-fly list is a joke. Ted Kennedy was on it, Omar Mateen wasn’t. As far as we know, not a single murderer, terrorist or otherwise, has ever been on the no-fly list. (I assume for this purpose that Kennedy’s grossly negligent drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne was not murder.) So best case, the no-fly ban does no good.

The second problem is that the no-fly list is concocted in secret and there is no way to get off it. This is a significant civil rights issue. The NRA says that the FBI should have to go through a judge, the equivalent of a search warrant, and show probable cause to put someone on the list.

The third problem, and the reason why the FBI opposes the Democrats’ proposal, is that it gives actual terrorists an easy way to find out whether the authorities are on to them: try to buy a gun. So the Democrats’ plan to ban anyone on the no-fly list from buying a gun is at best ill-considered.

More broadly, the Democrats’ core idea–go ahead and admit lots of potential terrorists, but don’t let them get their hands on a gun–flies in the face of reality. Convicted criminals are legally prohibited from buying guns. Does that prevent them from being armed? Of course not. Further, has any terrorist attack ever been thwarted because the would-be terrorist couldn’t find a gun? Not that I know of. A fundamental problem with all gun control proposals is that law-abiding citizens will follow them, but criminals (including, above all, terrorists) will not.

As is so often the case, the Democrats’ proposals are intended to gain political advantage, not to produce positive results. Nevertheless, the Democrats seem to have succeeded in converting the debate over the terrorist attack in Orlando to one about gun control. This is sad, but but doesn’t change reality: while neither approach is a panacea, it makes much more sense to control our borders than to admit all comers and try to foil terrorists through even more gun control measures than are already in place.

Right Angle: Is Hillary Bat-Guano Crazy?

June 8, 2016

Right Angle: Is Hillary Bat-Guano Crazy? Bill Whittle Channel via YouTube, June 7, 2016

Manifest Destiny in the New Wild West

November 4, 2015

Manifest Destiny in the New Wild West, Steyn on Line, November 3, 2015

1567At the new afternoon show at the High Chapparal theme park in Vegby Bolsgård, four Syrian orphans (left) wait in line as the Swedish Deputy Minister of Refugee Resettlement (right) moseys toward them with their first welfare check

I was in Malmö, Sweden, a month ago, and struck by tensions in the social fabric caused by the remorseless tide of “refugees” from “Syria”. Yesterday Rossleigh from the “Australian Independent Media Network” suggested that it was all confusion on my part and the bearded Muslims were, in fact, “hipsters”. Whether or not they’re hipsters, they’re now going to be the world’s least lonesome cowpokes.

The High Chaparral, presumably named after the Sixties telly show, is a Wild West theme park in southern Sweden (see right). And, because everywhere else in the country is filled up with as many Muslims as the fire code allows, the chaps at the Chaparral are now opening their swinging saloon doors to the new settlers and their covered wagons – whoops, covered wives. My old chums at the Telegraph report:

Few fleeing the civil war in Syria would have imagined they would end up spending the winter in a Wild West theme park complete with potted cacti, mock 19th century furniture, and cowboy murals.

But Sweden’s Migration Agency is now so desperate for rooms in which to house this autumn’s unexpected surge in refugees that it has signed a deal with High Chaparral, an amusement park in rural southern Sweden, to house 400 people.

Emil Erlandsson, the park’s manager and co-owner, said that the park had initially refused to lease out its accomodation for fear of damaging its brand.

“They have asked us five times and I have constantly turned them down,” he said. “But when we saw on the TV that refugees are now supposed to live in tents in Malmo, we took a decision that we should help.”

At the High Chaparral the only people living in tents are the Canadian Indians Mr Erlandsson uses as extras. Instead, the “refugees” will have a grand old time:

“They can learn to ride horses. Maybe they can look for jobs in the summer. We will see.”

He said many of the rooms where refugees would be housed had been decorated in a Wild West theme.

“They have Wild West sofas, and the rest of the furniture is in an authentic, old-fashioned style. The wall painting is also authentic,” he said…

“We have a real native American village with real native Americans,” Erlandsson said. “And in the Mexican village we have real Mexicans. Everything is authentic. It’s just like it was in the 19th century.”

And now in the American settlers’ village they’ll have real Muslims. Maybe they can change their name to the High Chaparallah. Coming attractions: Gunfight at the OK Koran.

~In the new Wild West, Kasim Ali, 25, and his cousins Adeel Ali, 20, and Razi Khalid, 18, decided that this town wasn’t big enough for both them and Aquib Baig, and decided to head him off at the pass:

They rammed his car before chasing him into a corner store in Blackburn, Lancashire, where they kicked and beat him in front of horrified shoppers.

It was – what else? – an “honor” attack: Kasim Ali did not approve of Aquib Baig dating his sister. It seems clear that they intended if not to kill then to cripple Mr Baig. But the judge, one Julian Shaw, was more indulgent:

Sentencing them at Preston Crown Court Sessions House, Recorder Julian Shaw told them: ‘There is no place for any religious or honour based violence.

‘It’s abhorrent, it’s against your religion, it’s unlawful. I have had to see the violence perpetrated.

‘Mercifully, perhaps more by luck than judgement, the victim didn’t sustain more serious injuries.’

None of that’s true. Their religion is extremely supportive of violence. And that the victim didn’t sustain “more serious” injuries is due not to mercy or luck or judgment, but to enough of those “horrified shoppers” deciding to cease standing around being merely “horrified” and to intervene. They don’t always.

As to whether it’s “unlawful”, well, His Honour declined to send any of the men to gaol – although one of them will have to do 60 hours of community service. So it’s not clear that what they did is in any meaningful sense “unlawful” – which is why the guys are photographed smirking as they swagger away from court. If you’re in Julian Shaw’s jurisdiction and you want to settle scores by ramming the other guy’s car off the road, have at it.

~Meanwhile, Angela Merkel’s Homestead Act continues to draw the world’s longest wagon train. Do watch this Der Spiegel TV item, with subtitles helpfully provided by Vlad:

The hopelessly overwhelmed countries do only one thing nowadays: They wave the masses of people through to the next country until they arrive in Germany…

“We can study there, we can work.”

“Who told you that?”

“Merkel! Merkel says she would support all Syrians in Germany. And we believe her! I think Germany is a great country. I have a lot of relatives there. 3:50 They all say, it’s a great country…”

“I surfed the internet and I found a hospital where I can get medical treatment.”

“What are you ill with, polio?”

“Yeah, polio.”

Hmm. You could always go to the High Chaparral in Sweden and give your blankets to Emil Erlandsson’s Indian extras.

~Uwe Brandl, the President of the Bavarian Association of Municipalities, has been running the numbers:

Germany’s Muslim population is set to nearly quadruple to an astonishing 20 million within the next five years, according to a demographic forecast by Bavarian lawmakers.

The German government expects to receive 1.5 million asylum seekers in 2015, and possibly even more in 2016. After factoring in family reunifications — based on the assumption that individuals whose asylum applications are approved will subsequently bring an average of four additional family members to Germany — that number will swell exponentially. This is in addition to the 5.8 million Muslims already living in Germany.

So from 5.8 million out of a population of 81 million, Muslims will now number 20 million out of a population of some 95 million.

Germans have a fertility rate of 1.3 children per couple. European Muslims are estimated to have approximately 3.5. Let’s keep the math simple with nice round numbers:

Total population: 100 million.
Native Germans: 80 million.
Muslims: 20 million.

The 80 million Germans will have 52 million children and 34 million grandchildren. The 20 million Muslims will have 35 million children and 61 million grandchildren. So in two generations there will be twice as many Muslims as Germans. And that’s without a single new immigrant after December 2016. (I go into a lot more detail on this remorseless arithmetic, in my highly prescient bestseller America Alone, personally autographed copies of which are exclusively available, etc, etc.)

Herr Brandl calls this “a demographic shift of epic proportions, one that will change the face of Germany forever”. But that’s understating it: it will obliterate the face of Germany forever. Frau Merkel will have achieved what Bomber Harris and the Red Army couldn’t: she will have wiped Germany off the map.

Long before that, however, she will have extinguished her party and its principal coalition partner. In a country where one-fifth of the population is Muslim, no party that wishes to remain electorally viable will be able to call itself the Christian Democratic Union or Christian Social Union. How about the Craven Dhimmicratic Union?

Down Under, poor old Tony Abbott was deposed by Malcolm Turnbull for giving a knighthood to the Duke of Edinburgh. Maybe if he’d given knighthoods to the entire population of Yemen and moved them to Melbourne, he’d still be in office. Is there no fiendish Herr Turnbull of the Reichstag willing to move against Merkel?