CORRECTION: Trudeau did NOT resign

Although you couldn't see it for fog, the sun rose this morning, as usual, over Cape Spear NL, the most easterly point in the People's Republic of Canuckistan -- Justin Trudeau, prop. 

Yes, Virginia, yesterday's smarmy and self-serving speech notwithstanding, Blackie McBlackface is still Prime Minister of the Great No-longer-white North. If a document -- e.g. an immigrant visa for an Islamic terrorist or a cheque to the President of Rumbabwe -- requires his signature, he'll still be there at Rideau Cottage.

"But," you may ask, "didn't Elon Musk say 'Trump won, Trudeau resigned!'?" Indeed he did, but he was only half-right. 

Desperate to get rid of Little Potato, hopeful Canucks didn't listen carefully to his words of farewell. What he actually said was, "I intend to resign as party leader [and] as prime minister, after the party selects its next leader through a robust, nationwide, competitive process."

Geddit? Not "I am resigning today" but "I intend to resign...after..." Future tense throughout. The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau is still Prime Minister of All Canuckistan, and there's not a damn thing any of you frostbacks can do about it.

To ensure that corruption business will be carried on as usual until such time as he actually resigns, Junior took the precaution of asking the compliant Governor-General (whom he appointed), to prorogue (read: suspend) Parliament until March 24th, at which time a new session will begin. Until then, there will be no annoying questions asked or challenges made to the supremacy of M Trudeau, his Liberal Party, and the liberal elites who run what is left of Canada.

The Big Question to be answered is: who will replace the Greatest Narcissistic Procrastinator in Canadian history. Walt will now give you the morning line and predict the likely result of the race nobody wants to win. Early entries are:

Mark Carney, former Governor of the Bank of Canada and, more recently, the Bank of England. Born with a silver sppon in his mouth, educated at private schools, member of the Toronto liberal elite. Has the backing of Big Business and (especially) the Big Banks, since he's "one of us". Like former Liberal Leader Michael "Iggy" Ignatieff, but without the charm. Vulnerable to the sasme attack ad: "He didn't come back for you!"

Chrystia Freeland, rebarbatvie former journalist whose farewell party at the Groan and Wail was held in a phone booth. Most recently Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister (an office not recognized in Canada's constitution) until she quit last year when told she was about to be demoted. Another resident of Toronto's toney Rosedale enclave. Has Ukrainian heritage but the Ukrainians never vote Liberal. Speaking style reminiscent of an Anglican missionary declaiming the Articles of Faith to a congregation of fuzzie-wuzzies. Will have the backing of the Sikh bloc as the most easily manipulable. Oh, she's a woman too, the darling of the feminists, both female and male.

Dominic LeBlanc, the latest to hold the dreaded Finance portfolio, because no-one else would take it after Ms Freeland quit. Son of a Governor-General, friend of the Trudeau family since childhood. "I've known Justin since he was a baby!" Bilingual (unlike the other two) and from New Brunswick/Nouveau Brunswick so won't upset the Québécois or the Toronto elites. Congenial (read: bibulous) and "a safe pair of hands", meaning he can be trusted to do nothing and depart gracefully following the spring election disaster.

And the winner will be... Dominic LeBlanc. Since the Gliberals face certain defeat in the election which will be called within days of the opening of the new session of Parliament, none of the other candidates will be trying too hard. They will be focusing on what happens after M LeBlanc resigns. He, however, will be happy to retire with the title of Prime Minister -- he's been everything else! -- and the pension and other perqs that go with it. 

You read it here first. Walt's lifetime pct: .987.

Further reading: "Justin Trudeau goes out blaming and betraying Canadians one more time" - Tasha KHeiriddin, in the National Post, 6/1/25. Lede: "In classic narcissistic fashion, Trudeau on Monday blamed his party — and everyone else — for his problems"

EU-elites panic as rightist coalitions win Italian and Swedish elections

As predicted (or hoped for) here last Bastille Day, the center-right coalition led by Giorgia Meloni won a parliamentary majority in Italy's general elections, held yesterday. Her Fratelli d'Italia (Brothers of Italy) party received about 26% of the votes counted so far. 

Matteo Salvini's far-right League and former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's centre-right Forza Italia, allied with the FDI, now control both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, with around 44% of the vote. Ms Meloni should thus become Italy's first female prime minister, heading the country's most right-wing government since WWII. 

Italian and European politicians are already crying foul. Shortly after conceding defeat, a senior memeber of the Democratic Party told the meeja "This is a sad evening for the country," adding that "[The right] has the majority in parliament, but not in the country." That seems a rather strange statement considering the result, but is consistent with the alarms raised by the Euro-weenies during the run-up to the election, when Ms Meloni was called the "new Mussolini", and worse.

Speaking early this morning, Ms Meloni said Italians had sent "a clear message" in backing her alliance. "If we are called upon to govern this nation, we will do so for all Italians, with the aim of uniting the people, of exalting what unites them rather than what divides them," she told reporters. "We will not betray your trust."  

In the 2018 election, the FdI garnered just over 4% of the vote. The party's rise to first place in the polls, at 26%, is attributable to Ms Meloni's clear and unapologetic stand in favour of conservative, pro-Western/anti-NWO principles, outlined in a barn-burner of a speech to Spain's far-right Vox party. 

"Yes to the natural family, no to the LGBT lobby, yes to sexual identity, no to gender ideology... no to Islamist violence, yes to secure borders, no to mass migration... no to big international finance... no to the bureaucrats of Brussels!" No wonder the lefties and one-worlders are afraid. 

Earlier this month, the people of Sweden, always held up as a shining example by the progressive one-worlders, throw out the Social Democrats, who had been in power forever, in national elections on September 11th. 

A right-wing group of parties, led by the centre-right Moderates, will have a go at forming the country's next government after the leftist Social Democrats failed to achieve a majority in the Riksdag.

Among the so-called "blue block" is the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, once shunned by the liberal political establishment, who recorded their best-ever election result with 20.5% of the vote, and thus will have great influence over the policies of the new coalition government. They campaigned on law-and-order issues following a rise in gun violence, and vowed to bring in longer prison sentences and reduce immigration. 

The election results in Sweden and Italy show the power of the resurgent right to harness the disaffection and Weltschmerz of the people of Europe. The chief reason for the victories of rightist parties is anti-immigration backlash. 

Europeans -- white Europeans, Christian Europans -- are sick, sore and tired of seeing their countries overrun by hordes of immigrants (especially "refugees" and asylum-seekers) who not only refuse to be assimilated into Western society, but are undermining Christian civilization to achieve the victory of Islam.

And they are fed up with the constant pandering to minorities by liberal politicians and churchmen (Hello, Francis!) intent on leading us into an anti-national, anti-Christian, New World Order, in which we will be dictated to by the World Economic Forum and the United Nations. "One nation under God" will be replaced by "One world under _______ (fill in the blank for yourself". 

Walt congratulates the Sweden Democrats and Fratelli d'Italia on their victories, and hopes they prove to be turning points for Italy and Sweden, as well as portents of things to come for the UK, Germany, France, and -- dare we say it -- America and Canada!

Memo to the ruling elites: "It's the economy, stupid!"

The liberal elites seem to be getting nervous, trying to figure out what they can do to avert the imminent reception. Adam Pankratz, a lecturer at the University of British Columbia's Sauder School of Business, wrote an excellent statement of the blindingly obvious, for Canada's National Post. Here are two key paragraph of "Economic reality is about to bulldoze the progressive agenda". Thanks to Agent 6 for  the link. 

For years now, governments across the western world have found reasons to turn towards tribal politics. Be it relentless condemnation of western history as uniquely evil, genuflection to those who shut down railroads and tear down statues or prostration before the idol of identity politics, it has been a one-way capitulation to any grievance Twitter could muster. Reality is about to force a change from identity driven wedges and fanciful green economic policy dreams back to serious matters like money and jobs. The inflation tidal wave, coupled with a slowing economy is making our citizens poorer. A backlash against Canadian Liberals and American Democrats, along with governing elites in Europe is coming and will be a first-class example of "it's the economy, stupid," in action.... 

Morgan Stanley recently warned oil could reach $380 a barrel if the worse case scenario of Russian crude coming off the market were to occur. This would be cataclysmic for all economies and participants therein, but, as always, the worst pain will be reserved for those who can least afford it. This is the great irony of current policy in Canada, Europe and America: by refusing to look reality in the eye, politicians are going to seriously harm those they purport to help while also sinking their own progressive agendas.

The "governing elites in Europe" must certainly include Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, about whom I wrote yesterday. The next sound you hear will be that of  his government falling. Lifetime pct .978.

VIDEO: Pierre Poilievre talks about old wood (???) - a message for freedom-loving conservatives everywhere

For those readers, especially Americans, who don't follow Canadian politics [Why would they? Ed.], let me bring you up to speed. By comparison with the Excited States, Canada is a pretty laid-back... or just plain dull... country. And Canucks like it that way. They generally elect governments which are either slightly to the left or (occasionally) slightly to the right of centre. There hasn't been a really conservative Conservative federal government since Adam was a little boy.

It has therefore come as a shock to the liberal Laurentian establishment that someone who sounds like a conservaative-cum-populist, in the mould of Donald Trump, looks like becoming the next leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, and, quite possibly, the next prime minister of Canuckistan.

That someone is Pierre Poilievre, about whom I've written before. Mr Poilievre is not truly a social conservative like Leslyn Lewis, the dark horse on the right. He has refused to grasp the nettles of the abortion, gay "marriage" and critical race theory issues. See "More on Poilievre and Lewis + Brown", WWW 2/5/22.

He has, however, championed the cause of freedom from Big Government, associating himself with the leaders of last winter's Freedom Convoy, and condemning Emperor Justin's use of emergency powers to impose vaccine and other mandates on the Canadian sheeple.

In so doing, he distances himself from Jean Charest -- the last of the Red Tories -- and Patrick Brown, the puppet of the World Sikh Organization of Canada. [The link is for those who think Walt is making this up. Ed.] This week the CPC disqualified Mr Brown for violating was campaign rules and (possibly) the Elections Act. 

That leaves John James Charest (his real name) as the only serious (?) candidate of the old "Conservative" establishment, with the likely outcome of September's vote being the coronation of Lucky Pierre. But M Poilievre isn't taking a landslide win for granted. His team has just released a clever and skillfully made video, in which he waxes poetic over some old planks. What does this have to do with conservative values? Check it out.  

 

For those who didn't or couldn't watch the video, here's a synopsis. Mr Poilievre at home in Ottawa admiring a wooden post he recovered from an old barn and used in a DIY project. Early lumberjacks hewed it from logs, he says, leaving the scars of their axes as evidence of their labour. Then he turns to the planks on the wall. He bought them from a farmer, and spent hours cleaning and restoring them. 

Why? Because they tell a story about the people who fashioned them and the elements that weathered them. All he did, he says, was to reclaim what was already there in the wood. And reclaiming Canadians' lost freedom is what his campaign is about. That's his message.

Liberals, he explains, have been trying to build a kind of utopia, knocking down statues, sweeping away history and banning words as they go. This is nothing but a pretext to give themselves "vast new powers," which they've been trying to do all through the past seven years of Liberal government.

"Reclaim your life," he concludes. "Reclaim your freedom!" That's a powerful message -- a challenge which ought to resonate with not just the sheeplike Canucks, but with Americans, Britons and lovers of freedom throughout the western world. Walt says, "Right on!"

VIDEO: President Trump's speech to CPAC 26/2/22 (full)

President Donald J. Trump was the star attraction at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Saturday night. In a speech which which many believe [and hope! Ed.] marks the unoffical beginning of his campaign to retake the White House in 2024, he promised to rid the government of the "power-hungry ruling class" and to rid America of "left-wing tyranny." Here is the full C-SPAN video of his speech.

   

President Trump enumerated the harms that powerful liberal elites are inflicting on those who resist them, as seen most recently in Canuckistan. For those readers who haven't the time to listen to the entire speech, here are some of the highlights. The emphasis is mine.

They use Big Tech to censor you; they use the Deep State to spy on you; they use the intelligence agencies to frame you; they use the media to slander you; they use the legal system to persecute you; they rig elections to disenfranchise and destroy you. 

When we win, we will defeat this corrupt political establishment… The Washington swamp knows that we are coming to break its grip on power forever. 

You can take the five worst presidents in American history and put them together, and they would not have done the damage that Joe Biden and his administration have done in just a very short 13 months. Under Bush, Russia invaded Georgia. Under Obama, Russia took Crimea. Under Biden, Russia invaded Ukraine. I stand as the only president of the 21st century on whose watch Russia did not invade another country. Putin is playing Biden like a drum, and it's not a pretty thing to watch.

The tyranny we have witnessed in Canada in recent weeks should shock and dismay people all over the world. 

In an advanced western democracy, the peaceful movement of patriotic truckers, workers, and families protesting for their most basic rights and liberties have been violently put down. Their assets and life savings have been frozen. They have been slandered as Nazis, racists, and terrorists. They’ve been arrested and charged with phony crimes, they’ve been falsely accused with loyalty to foreign powers. They're being hunted down like enemies of their own government. 

You are either with the peaceful truckers, or you are with the left-wing fascists. We stand with the truckers and the Canadian people and their noble quest to reclaim their freedom.

It's time to declare independence from every last COVID mandate. The emergency is over, and we will submit to this left-wing tyranny no longer. The people who are masking our children… we will never forget what they did. We will hold them accountable at the ballot box this November.

The COVID mandates are just one part of a much larger crisis. The radical left is trying to replace American democracy with woke tyranny. They want to do the same thing to America that Trudeau has been doing to Canada. Our mission in 2022 and in 2024 is to take on this radical and power-hungry ruling class and to deliver them an electoral defeat so resounding that they are exiled into political oblivion never to return again.

We have to defend parents' rights against these lunatics and maniacs. Any parent who objects to the radical indoctrination in their children’s classroom should be able to take their share of taxpayer dollars and spend it at the public, private, charter, or religious school of their choice.

The days of Big Tech censoring the voices of the American people are numbered. Let’s find out who made the decision to censor the Joe and Hunter Biden corruption bombshell. Let’s do a full forensic audit of the $417 million given by Mark Zuckerberg, spent to take over local election offices in key Democrat counties. We need a full accounting of all of the illegitimate turnout efforts — illegal drop boxes and ballot harvesting — that’s taken place.

My fellow Americans, this nation does not belong to the radicals, and it does not belong to the corrupt establishment in Washington. This nation belongs to you. It's patriots like you that are going to save our country.

Where are they now?

Yesterday we devoted this space to an article written 36 years ago by Nat Hentoff, decrying the hypocrisy of the liberal elites. Mr Hentoff accused the gliberals of trying to silence all views that did not reflect the politically correct orthodoxy of the day. I promised I'd give you an update on what became of the organizations mentioned in his rant, so here it is.

According to Wikipedia, the National Organization for Women is one of the main liberal feminist organizations in the USA, and primarily lobbies for gender equality within the existing political system. One supposes they are still awaiting the election of the first female president. Who do they support now? Karmala Harris? Hellery Clinton (again)? Or the one the DNC insiders are plotting to nominate? [Who do you mean? Ed.]

The Progressive, which Wikipedia calls "an American magazine and website of politics, culture and progressivism with a left-leaning perspective", is still publishing. "It supports civil rights and civil liberties, gender equality, immigrant rights, labor rights, environmentalism, criminal justice reform, and democratic reform." You still can't buy an ad to promote the pro-life cause. 

Eagle Forum is still a voice for conservatives. It is the parent organization of the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund and the Eagle Forum PAC. The Eagle Forum focuses on social issues and describes itself as pro-family. Wikipedia, on the other hand, calls it "socially conservative and anti-feminist." No bias there, of course. 

Feminists for Life of America is still out there, fighting the pro-life battle. The organization describes itself as "shaped by the core feminist values of justice, non-discrimination, and non-violence". It publishes a biannual magazine, The American Feminist, and aims to reach young women, particularly college students. Wikipedia can't resist pointing out that FFL's anti-abortion positions have been criticized by feminists. 

According to its website, the Funding Exchange, "a pioneer in social justics philanthrophy", was a national network of social justice foundations created in 1979 by "young activists with inherited wealth who had a 'change, not charity' vision of how they felt their money could make a difference."

The founding members sowed the wind by "involving community activists in grantmaking decisions", and reaped the whirlwind. The Funding Exchange was legally dissolved effective November 21, 2018, because of (among other things), "challenging conversations about race,"

A quick read of the organization's official history, p. 46 ff, reveals that it fell apart because of... wait for it... divisions over race! How American is that?! Seems the white gliberals couldn't get along with the BLM types, and vice-versa. Here's a quote from the history, which I'm including because I love seeing the liberals eat their own.

[One of the foundations] would bring a large contingent to board meetings, basically packing the room. Board meetings...were taken up with contentious anti-racism sessions, separate white and people of color caucuses, and political discussions that never seemed to resolve anything. There was a sense that a lot of time was wasted on infighting and spinning of wheels. As a result, several member funds began to opt in and out of participating in board meetings.

So the Funding Exchange is gone, but the SJWs, BLMers and other looney leftists still have plenty of money, quite apart from the grant money and other "reparations" they get from the Brandon maladministration. (Does the name George Soros mean anything to you?) 

But our side has money too, and the fight goes on. The voices of conservatism and common sense have not been silenced. On the issue of abortion, those who advocate women's "rights" to kill their babies, without regard to the rights of the unborn babies, are running scared now. Roe v. Wade could be overturned even before President Trump is re-elected in 2024. Keep fighting ladies (and gentlemen!) and God bless you!

VIDEO: Rex Murphy tells why he won't be silenced by the cancel culture

Ed. here. I've told Walt that I am coming to grips with the new Blogger GUI and that, for the time being, we can still use the "legacy interface". I've also passed along messages from a number of readers [How many? Walt] saying they will be disappointed if we give up now, so close to what may be a pivotal moment in American (and therefore world) history.

Walt has suggested that we put up some videos until he feels like writing again. Fortunately, the premiere episode of Season Two of the True North Speaker Series went live yesterday. In this hour-and-a-quarter video, TN founder Candice Malcolm sits down with the legendary Rex Murphy, whose videos and writings have been featured on WWW several times over the years.

Mr Murphy can be counted on to provide a much needed dose of common sense in a world where good sense is anything but common. In this exclusive interview, he discusses with Ms Malcolm a wide range of issues including the COVID-19 pandemic, the changes in the media landscape over the past several decades and the totalitarian impulses on the left. This is primarily for Canadians, but our American friends should find it even more relevant.



Walt here. This interview has been a great inspiration to me. If Rex Murphy won't be silenced, neither will I!

Taki reviews Dylan's "Murder Most Foul"

I confess... or, rather, boast... that I have never in my life listened to a "song" by Bob Dylan. Why should I? In his weekly summing up of "The Week That Perished", Taki says this about the allegedly iconic [most wrongly used word of 2019. Ed.] singer.

Dylan can't sing, can hardly strum a guitar, wheezes through a harmonica as if it's a ventilator, is as short as the average woman, is rumored to generate intense body odor, looks like a homeless person, and his music blows in the wind.

And yet... Bob Dylan, né Robert Zimmerman, remains a hero to lefties, Democrats and others who've drunk the KoolAid mixed up for us by the liberal elites, of whom he is the poet laureate. Below the meme you can read the rest of Taki's scathing review of Dylan's latest... make that only... Number 1 hit.

Robert Allen Zimmerman, born in northern Minnesota, remained Robert Zimmerman until he realized he could get away with pretending to be a non-ethnic hobo bard from the South if he rechristened himself as "Bob Dylan". As Southern humorist Roy Blount, Jr. once noted, Dylan is the type who will pronounce it "auty-mobile" and expect no one to notice that he’s faking it.

Dylan can’t sing, can hardly strum a guitar, wheezes through a harmonica as if it's a ventilator, is as short as the average woman, is rumored to generate intense body odor, looks like a homeless person, and his music blows in the wind.

Still, people in the 1960s looked up to him as a God -- even The Beatles deferred to Dylan -- which hints at how much was wrong with people in the 1960s.

He’s also the pretentious type who will give his songs inscrutable titles just to confuse people, which is why he titled a song that should have been called "Everybody Must Get Stoned" as "Rainy Day Women #12 and #35" instead. He’s that insufferable.

Despite selling 100 million albums to people who were somehow able to find wisdom in his off-key warblings, Dylan had never lodged a #1 hit in the USA. He hit #2 twice, with "Like a Rolling Stone" in 1965 and the aforementioned "Everybody Must Get Stoned" in 1966.

Now, at a point when he is roughly Methusaleh's age and when 20-year-olds don't even know who JFK or Bob Dylan was, Mr. Zimmerman has proved that people in the 2020s may be worse than those in the 1960s because he’s finally scored a #1 hit -- with an unlistenable ballad about JFK’s assassination that has more meaningless pop-culture references than an average episode of The Simpsons. Oh -- and the thing is 17 minutes long.

It is called "Murder Most Foul", and the atonal abomination recently hit #1 on Billboard’s Rock Digital Song Sales chart. Without so much as an apology, it includes the following lyrics:

Goodbye, Charlie
Goodbye, Uncle Sam
Frankly, my Scarlet, I don’t give a damn….
They mutilated his body, and they took out his brain
What more could they do? 
They piled on the pain
But his soul’s not there where it was supposed to be at
For the last fifty years they’ve been searchin’ for that….
That magic bullet of yours has gone to my head
I’m just a patsy like Patsy Cline….
Play “Mystery Train” for Mr. Mystery
The man who fell down dead like a rootless tree
Play it for the Reverend
Play it for the Pastor
Play it for the dog that got no master

Why, it's almost as if Lee Harvey Oswald shot the wrong guy!

Note from Ed.: Yes, I noticed what appears to be a typo in the meme, but I only edit Walt's stuff!

"No Liberal bias here, folks" sez Elections Canada. Sez Walt, "Eh?"

Elections Canada is a theoretically independent body which organizes and supervises federal elections in Canuckistan. However, it is funded by the Liberal government of Canada -- Just In Trudeau, Prop. -- which has left churls like Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, who accused the agency of being a "Liberal lapdog" when he heard about EC's latest brain fart -- an ad campaign to encourage young people (read: potential Liberal voters) to register and vote in October's federal election.

The original idea was to put out two videos, one English and one French, featuring 13 "influencers" -- "famous online personalities" such as Lilly Singh (pictured), music icons, TV stars, and even former Olympians. Besides Ms Singh (talk show host), the list includes: Mitch Hughes (YouTuber), Andre De Grasse (Olympic sprinter of colour), Katherine Levac (alleged comedienne), Elle Mills (another Prideful YouTuber), Maripier Morin (TV host), Alex Nevsky (alleged singer), Penny Oleksiak (Olympienne), Nicolas Ouellet (another TV host unknown in English Canada), Max Parrot (another Olympian), Thanh Phung (blogger, unrelated to Walt), Maayan Ziv (CEO of AccessNow, a human rights, public policy, and advocacy group) and Ashley Callingbull (First Nations activist and model).

What could go wrong? Well, M Poilievre and others have suggested that the 13 "influencers", while as diverse and inclusive as all get out, might be rather exclusive when it comes to political thought, or should we say political bias. Ms Callingbull, for example, said in social media posts before the 2015 election, "we are in desperate need of a new prime minister." And so it came to pass when Mr Socks prevailed over Steve Harpoon.

Articles which appeared in Le Droit and Flash Québec in February of 2018 described Mlle Levac as saying her ideal man is... wait for it... Justin Trudeau. And in December of 2015, Ms Singh posted a photo of Mr Socks, praising his appointment of a gender-balanced cabinet along with the hashtag #mancrushfriday. She has posted nothing between then and now indicating her view of the Prime Minister has changed.

Elections Canada, apparently stung by suggestions that the Gang of 13 were members of the liberal elite, decided to scrap the ad campaign, at a cost to Canadian taxpayers of at least C$325,000 ($246,000 in real money) which had already been spent on shooting the videos, paying the unbiased "influencers", etc. According to Chief Electoral Officer Stéphane Perrault, the decision to shut down the initiative was taken to avoid the risk of using "influencers" who might appear to have some partisan bias.

M Perrault refused to name names or say what kind of bias the "influencers" might have. On CBC Radio's The House, he said, "It was clear from the outset that it had to be beyond any reproach, beyond any possible interpretation that, whether for lifestyle choices, or comments, or pictures, that these could be tied to a particular partisan point of view. It's important for Canadians to understand and know that Elections Canada is a completely independent agent of Parliament, that we are non-partisan, that everything we do, including the media campaign, is done with that in mind." This was on radio, not TV, so we couldn't see if he was able to keep a straight face.

Liberal bias is pervasive in the meeja, the civil service, and the schools of not just Canada, but the USA, the UK, and indeed just about every country of the Western world. I'll have more to say about that in my next post, a review and recommendation of Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, by Bernard Goldberg (Regnery Publishing, 2002).

VIDEO: Alleged Native American videos self drinking beer

I complained on Saturday that my blood hadn't risen to a boil in the last few days. Well, the temperature has started to go up, but so far that's more the result of amusement than anger, for I just watched what must surely be the phoniest video of the new year. Here it is.



Yes, folks, it's Fauxcahontas, aka Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), proving that she's just a regular guy -- about as much "guy" as she is Indian -- slopping down a bottle of suds [Well, we only see her swallow a mouthful. Ed.] in her average American kitchen, where she is joined by her average American (non-Indian) husband. This proves they're not members of the east coast elite, you see -- just normal folks like us hinterland-dwellers.

But really, doesn't everyone know that ladies don't drink beer? And that Native Americans often have an extremely low tolerance to alcohol? [Alcohol? In American beer? Ed.] I'm going to run out and register the trade name "Fauxcahontas beer", because that brand is sure to be even more as popular than Billy Beer -- remember? -- when Liz becomes Prez.

Leon DeWinter: Not the citizen but the small elite chooses

As promised, here is the English translation of the opinion piece by Leon DeWinter which appeared in the December 12th edition of the Dutch newspaper, De Telegraaf. Thanks to Agent 69 for sending this and providing the translation as well.

Throughout Europe, citizens look powerlessly at the decisions of ruling political‐cultural classes that deal with awe‐inspiring issues.

One such issue is mass migration. The welfare states, according to the elites, must open their borders to non‐Western migrants. The welfare state does not exist outside the Western Protestant nation states, or: its religious‐cultural identity is of crucial importance. Do immigrants with non‐Western religious cultures disturb the welfare state, which is an impressive function of the cultures of northern European peoples? Can the welfare state survive if it also needs to be an immigration state? The elites claim that this is possible ('Wir schaffen das') but refuse to mention the confusing consequences that disrupt mutual trust: chronic unemployment, high crime rates, religious backwardness.

And the energy problem? There are scientists who think differently about climate change than the elites, but moderates and skeptics have not been heard by parliament. They also do not speak in the media. And if that does happen, they are put away as 'deniers' ‐ in the sense of Holocaust deniers, so genocidal climate killers.

Since the beginning of parliamentary democracy in the nineteenth century, 'climate' has never been on the agenda of parliament and government. This subject is larger than any other subject, apart from war, and has only existed for two decades; the choices that our elites make as a result of this have enormous consequences for the energy supply, and thus for the foundations of our society.

Today, in The Hague and in Brussels, themes are so extensive that they transcend the field of politics. But the decision‐making process has remained the same. On the basis of a vote issued by the civilian population once every four years, a small elite claims the right to change our society existentially and forever. They do not want to realize that the gigantic extent of the problem is not in balance with that
one election vote.

Brussels has processes that are intentionally complex and largely invisible. The unification of Europe has been set up from the beginning as a 'top‐down' project: the elites lead their peoples to an ever closer form of living together, which ultimately leads to a real union led from a powerful center. For this, the nation states, and everything that belongs to them culturally, such as patriotism, nationalism, ethnic and religious identity, must be watered down. The people involved are not asked for approval while they are being rummaged into a union.

Just like migration, the so‐called energy transition shakes society to its foundations. Here the elites claim apocalyptic problems; if they really are so colossal, should citizens nevertheless express themselves through binding referendums on the need to adapt the fabric of society to the smallest fibers?

In the back rooms in the Hague, the unelected stakeholders discussed the energy transition. Many hundreds of billions have to finance the build‐up of geothermal energy, solar energy and wind turbines. Yield: in 2100 a heating reduction of 0.0003 Celsius (if the calculation models correctly predict the warming, which is still the question).

The elites have annexed and closed the major themes of our time for those who disagree with them ('racist', 'Islamophobic', 'sexist', 'fascist', 'Jew‐hater'). The so‐called 'populism' is a direct reaction to this. Just like the Yellow Hesjes. Just like Trump and the rise of the Alternative für Deutschland.

Most media behave like state propaganda organs as their journalists inhabit the same ideological and cultural cosmos as the political elites. Thus politicians, without being denounced by most media, can propose propaganda and censorship models in the Marrakesh Pact that until recently only occurred in tyrannies. They are counting on the powerful online companies to censor unwelcome messages. They do so eagerly because their directors also live in that cosmos.

Due to migration and energy adjustments, Western life patterns come under pressure, and many Europeans realize this, most of whom are reasonably satisfied with their current existence. Numerous middle groups, better educated and better informed by the Internet than any other generation in
human history, conclude that they are pawns in a transnational, globalistic chess game of intellectual and political upper layers, often organized in elusive NGOs, the shock troops of the left, who work with government subsidies and donations from just as elusive billionaires. The 'common man' should not curse but -- submissive and meat‐free and sugar‐free -- follow the visionary elites when they go to the diversity, gender, climate, migration and identity paradise.

I'm curious how long this goes on before the bomb really bursts.

Indeed. We are all waiting to see when the balloon goes up... and who goes with it!

Leon DeWinter: Niet de burger maar de kleine elite kiest

From across the pond, Agent 69 has sent us the op-ed section of the December 12th edition of the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf. Since blowing up the photo may not work for you, 69 has kindly copied the text of the excellent column by Leon DeWinter, which follows. He's also given us a translation into English, which I'll post next. Ed.

In heel Europa kijken burgers machteloos naar de besluiten van heersende politiekculturele klassen die zich bezighouden met ontzagwekkende issues.

Eén zo’n issue is massamigratie. De verzorgingsstaten, zo menen de elites, moeten hun grenzen openen voor niet-westerse migranten. De verzorgingsstaat bestaat niet buiten de westers-protestantse natiestaten, ofwel: zijn religieus-culturele identiteit is van cruciaal belang. Verstoren migranten met niet-westerse religieuze culturen de verzorgingsstaat, die een indrukwekkende functie is van de culturen van NoordEuropese volken? Kan de verzorgingsstaat overleven als hij ook een immigratiestaat moet zijn? De elites beweren dat dat kan (’Wir schaffen das’) maar weigeren de verwarrende gevolgen te benoemen die het onderlinge vertrouwen verstoren: chronische werkloosheid, hoge criminaliteitscijfers, religieuze achterlijkheid.

En de energieproblematiek? Er zijn wetenschappers die anders over klimaatopwarming denken dan de elites, maar gematigden en sceptici zijn niet gehoord door het parlement. Ze komen evenmin aan het woord in de media. En als dat wel gebeurt, worden ze weggezet als ’ontkenners’ – in de zin van Holocaust-ontkenners, dus genocidale klimaatmoordenaars.

Sinds het begin van de parlementaire democratie in de negentiende eeuw heeft ’Klimaat’ nooit op de agenda’s van het parlement en van de regering gestaan. Dit onderwerp is groter dan enig ander onderwerp, op oorlog na, en bestaat pas sinds twee decennia; de keuzes die onze elites naar aanleiding hiervan maken hebben kolossale consequenties voor de energievoorziening, en dus voor de fundamenten van onze samenleving.

In Den Haag en in Brussel spelen tegenwoordig thema’s die zo omvangrijk zijn dat ze het terrein van de politiek overstijgen. Maar het besluitvormingsproces is hetzelfde gebleven. Op basis van een stem die door de burgerbevolking één keer per vier jaar wordt uitgebracht, claimt een kleine elite het recht onze samenleving existentieel en voor altijd te veranderen. Zij wil er zich geen rekenschap van geven dat de gigantische omvang van de problematiek niet in balans is met die ene verkiezingenstem.

Brussel kent processen die met opzet complex zijn en grotendeels onzichtbaar blijven. Het unificeren van Europa is vanaf het begin als een ’top-down’ project opgezet: de elites leiden hun volken naar een steeds hechtere vorm van samenleven die uiteindelijk moet leiden tot een heuse unie geleid vanuit een krachtig centrum. Daarvoor moeten de natiestaten, en alles wat daar cultureel bij hoort, zoals vaderlandsliefde, nationalisme, etnische en religieuze identiteit, worden afgezwakt. De betrokken volken wordt niet om goedkeuring gevraagd terwijl ze een unie in worden gerommeld.

Net als migratie doet de zgn. energietransitie de samenleving op haar grondvesten schudden. Het gaat hier, zo beweren de elites, om apocalyptische problemen; als ze werkelijk zo kolossaal zijn, dienen burgers zich toch via bindende referenda te uiten over de noodzaak het weefsel van de samenleving tot in de kleinste vezels aan te passen?

In Haagse achterkamers bespraken clubjes ongekozen belanghebbenden de energietransitie. Vele honderden miljarden moeten de opbouw van aardwarmte, zonneenergie en windmolens financieren. Opbrengst: in 2100 een opwarmingsreductie van 0.0003 Celsius (als de rekenmodellen correct de opwarming voorspellen, wat nog maar de vraag is).

De elites hebben de grote thema’s van onze tijd geannexeerd en afgesloten voor wie het met hen oneens is (’racist’, ’islamofoob’, ’seksist’, ’fascist’, ’jodenhater’). Het zgn. ’populisme’ is hierop een directe reactie. Net als de Gele Hesjes. Net als Trump en de opkomst van de Alternative für Deutschland.

De meeste media gedragen zich als staatspropaganda-organen aangezien hun journalisten dezelfde ideologische en culturele kosmos bewonen als de politieke elites. Dus kunnen politici, zonder daarvoor door de meeste media te worden gehekeld, in het Marrakesh Pact propaganda- en censuurmodellen voorstellen die tot voor kort alleen bij tirannieën voorkwamen. Zij dragen de machtige online-bedrijven op onwelgevallige berichten te censureren – dat doen zij gretig omdat hun bestuurders ook in die kosmos leven.

Door migratie en energie-aanpassingen komen de westerse levenspatronen onder druk te staan, en dat beseffen veel Europeanen, van wie de meesten redelijk tevreden zijn met hun huidige bestaan. Talloze middengroepen, beter opgeleid en mede door internet beter geïnformeerd dan enige andere generatie in de menselijke geschiedenis, stellen vast dat zij pionnen zijn in een transnationaal, globalistisch schaakspel van intellectuele en politieke bovenlagen, vaak georganiseerd in ongrijpbare ngo’s, de stoottroepen van links, die werken met overheidssubsidies en donaties van net zo ongrijpbare miljardairs. De ’gewone man’ moet niet zeiken maar gedwee en vlees- en suikervrij de visionaire elites volgen wanneer ze optrekken naar het diversiteits-, gender-, klimaat-, migratie- en identiteitsparadijs.

Dus wordt er ’tegen’ gestemd. Trekken Fransen gele hesjes aan. Gaan mensen zich te buiten aan gescheld en getier. Wordt Zwarte Piet een halszaak. Want ’de’ politiek heeft zich van hen afgekeerd.

Ik ben benieuwd hoe lang dit doorgaat voordat de bom echt barst.

Dhr DeWinter is not alone. We are all waiting to see when the balloon goes up... and who goes with it!

Wynne loses, conservatives win in ON -- a warning to "progressives"

It's taken me a few hours to get going this morning, following a night of toasting [marshmallows? Ed.] but a small serving of Ma Nifkins' jellied gin has me almost back to normal, so let me share some thoughts from yesterday's provincial election in the Canadian province of Ontari-ari-ario.

To set the stage, and get our American readers up to speed, Ontario is one of the more "progressive" provinces in one of the most liberal nations on earth, outside of Scandinavia. For the last 15 years it has been misruled by the Liberal Party -- the party of Big Government and social justice for all (except for straight, white, Canadian-born males). For the last five years, the Premier (head of the provincial government) was Kathleen Wynne, pictured at left below, the image on the right being that of her sister.

Ms Wynne is proud to be a lesbian, and is largely responsible for the much-reviled dirty sex education curriculum imposed on Ontario schools (including Catholic schools) in 2015. See WWW passim.

After 15 years of the Liberal nanny state's social engineering and tax-and-spend mismanagement, the people of Ontario were crying, begging for change. But who would change what the liberal elites and the (((controlled media))) keep saying is the natural order of things? Could anyone promise to turn back the clock?

Two other parties -- three, if you count the Green Party -- said they would do things differently. The socialist New Democratic Party (NDP), led by Andrea Horwath -- another short, shrill lady (?) -- promised to tax more and spend more, to give Ontarians free drugs, free dental care, and the sun, moon and stars, all by making the corporations and the rich, pay for it. As part of that, Ms Horwath said she would declare Ontario a "sanctuary province", so the bounties of socialism would be available to the huddled masses entering Canada illegally, at a cost of a mere C$2.5 billion (about $1.93 billion in real money).

The alternative -- and quite a stark choice it was, according to Ms Wynne herself -- was the oxymoronically named Progressive Conservative Party, led by Doug Ford, brother of the late Rob Ford, the mayor of Toronto, famous for having appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live. Like his brother, Doug Ford portrayed himself as a tax-cutting warrior, a fiscal conservative who believes governments waste too much taxpayers' money. Over and over, he repeated a simple message: a Ford government will be a responsible steward for taxpayers' money, and that "help is on the way for hard-working families!"

Mr Ford said he would cut taxes, cut the price of gas, cut hydro rates, cut the price of beer and eliminate the deficit while spending billions on transit and infrastructure projects. He had a simple product, and he was selling it at a lower price than anybody else in terms of tax cuts and other commitments of reduced prices. Those are tangible things that people understood and -- after 15 years of liberalism -- very much wanted.

And guess what, folks? It worked! The simple small-C conservative message, delivered by a straight white male -- the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with -- carried the Progressive Conservativess to a solid victory over lefties. Here's Doug Ford celebrating going to Queen's Park today as the head of a majority government.

Any resemblance to Donald Trump is purely coincidental, don't you think? Mr Ford's detractors say otherwise. They accused him of cultivating the same image to win the same voters -- the plain people of Ontario, ignored for so long by liberal chattering classes of downtown Toronto. Whether he did so deliberately or not doesn't matter. It worked! Don Guy, a veteran Liberal political campaign strategist and former chief of staff to Kathleen Wynne's predecessor, Dalton McGuinty, said "[Mr Ford] was the ideal candidate because he gave small-c conservative voters a very comfortable home, a very comfortable archetype and a very strong message."

Kathleen Wynne had a mutual love affair (philosophical, not physical!) with Canuck Prime Minister Justin "Mr Socks" Trudeau. She shared Junior's "progressive ideals", and could be counted on to support his view of government as an agent for change. Doug Ford? Not at all! A price on carbon? He's against it. Asking the wealthy to shoulder a greater tax burden? He's against that, too. Free drugs for all? Social housing, especially for "refugees" and the idle poor? Gender-based analysis of government initiatives? Such entitlement programmes weren't at the bottom of Mr Ford's to-do list. They weren't on it at all! The priorities of a Ford government, he told voters, begin with "A" for "austerity".

A political scientist at Queen's University, in Kingston ON, said, "I think the fact that he came across as sensible during the debates really helped him a lot. He didn't get upset during them. It was a very controlled campaign. He was very much in control as well. He had his key messages. He stayed on point. He repeated them." Mr Ford's message that he would find "efficiencies" in government resonated with Ontario voters, she said. "People do see government as being wasteful in some ways. Everybody's got a story about that, so that kind of hits home."

As well as a warning to the libtards, progressives and SJWs, Doug Ford's victory -- and it's very much his, personally! -- is a good lesson for small-C conservatives everywhere. Keep the message simple, stay focussed on bread-and-butter issues more than ideology, and you will win. Next target for Canadians -- turf Trudeau in 2019! If I were "Mr Socks", I'd be quaking in my loafers.

Note from Ed.: For American readers who are wondering what's with all the blue in a conservative celebration... party colours in Canada are, like those of Britain, the reverse of what you're used to in the Excited States of America. Liberals wear red. Conservatives wear blue. The Greens favour green -- DUH! As for the NDP, who you'd think would be in the pink... their colour is orange. Go figure.

Why Margaret Wente didn't join the Wimmin's March

Ed. here. Walt left on Wednesday to go to the nation's capital for the inauguration of President Donald Trump. (Dontcha love that phrase? We do!) But when he got to Richmond he found it strangely quiet, almost empty. I hope to set him straight over the weekend, and hope for some comments on Monday. Watch this space.

Meanwhile, here's an excerpt from "Don't set your hair on fire. It won't help", by Margaret Wente, an American ex-pat now living in Canada. If you read the whole thing, you'll learn that Ms Wente doesn't like President Trump, but is not joining the Wimmin's March on Washington because, IHHO, there's no point to it, or any of the other hysterical reaction we're hearing and seeing this weekend.

Why are we so irrational about Donald Trump? Well, we’re tribal, and we’ve decided he is Moloch. (By “we,” I mean the usual left-liberal-academic-media-urban professional crowd who don’t own pickup trucks.) Also, we have no sense of perspective. Most of us who live in North America have no idea what bad leaders or bad times are truly like. We don’t know any history, either. Populist backlashes are nothing new. According to the historian Niall Ferguson, the five ingredients for a backlash are a rise in immigration, a rise in inequality, a perception of corruption at the top, a major financial crisis, and a demagogue to light the spark. The U.S. scores a Bingo. Populism, he points out, is usually part of a global phenomenon. Its targets are typically immigration, free trade and high finance. Populists are more interested in trade wars than shooting wars. So Mr. Trump is nothing new in history. What’s new is his unequalled power to shake the global order.

8 ways liberals can blame themselves for electing Trump

Walt was surprised, during the late campaign for the presidensity, to find that pompous pundit Andrew Coyne, who previously masqueraded as a centrist, was a liberal in disguise. Mr Coyne is frothing at the mouth, even today, angry and incredulous that Americans could have had the temerity to disregard his (and 99% of the chattering classes') endorsement of Hellery Clinton.

I trust Mr Coyne is aghast, if not apoplectic, to read, in the very same pages as his latest rant, the excellent article by Tristin Hopper in today's National Post headed ""We'd cried wolf too many times": Eight ways liberals can blame themselves for President Trump". For those too busy to read the article, Walt reproduces here, in Letterman style, the eight-fold list.

8. Post-election protests. (You have to read the article to see how this fits in.)
7. All the damned celebrities.
6. All the political correctness talk.
5. Flawed candidate.
4. Demonizing conventional conservatives.
3. Mocking poor white people.
2. Flirting with identity politics.
1. Calling everything racist all the time.

I hope Mr Coyne and those who appear with him on CBC-TV's "At Issue" panel will have read Mr Hopper's article before next Thursday's telecast, in which they would do well to bring some salt for the large helpings of crow that should be on the menu.

Worth reading (and also from today's National Post): Rex Murphy "It wasn’t misogyny that caused Clinton’s downfall, it was all the baggage she dragged around"

Seriously, this time: Ron Paul explains why Brexit matters to us

If you skipped over yesterday's post -- "Catholic prelate says South Sudan 'ruled by monkeys'" -- because you thought it was just about Africa, please click on the link and check out the first couple of paragraphs, because I started with some musings about Brexit.

A revolution against the prevailing orthodoxy of globalism strikes me as being a Good Thing. The idea of one big happy worldwide family is the veriest bullshit, contrary to human nature. Everyone knows this, but the liberal elites who dominate our media, universities and political parties refuse to admit it. Now we "ordinary people" are starting to get up on our hind feet and say we've had enough. About time!

A couple of days earlier I posted a piece on American reaction to Brexit, the gist of which was that Merkans were struggling to understand why a democratically elected head of government -- British PM David Cameron -- would relinquish control simply because he had been shown to have made a spectacularly bad judgment call. That post, dear readers, was lifted from The Onion, as I thought I made clear. It was satire, a joke, funny haha.

Apparently some of you mistook it for a real op-ed piece, so, to get serious, I refer you to "After 'Brexit', Can We Exit a Few Things Too?" by Ron Paul. As usual, Mr Paul has some very common-sensical things to say about why the Brits voted themselves out of Europe, and what lessons America might usefully learn from their decision. Here's are key excerpts. The emphasis is mine.

Last week’s UK vote to leave the EU may have come as a shock to many, but the sentiment that led British voters to reject rule from Brussels is nothing unique. In fact it is growing sentiment worldwide. Frustration with politics as usual, with political parties that really do not differ in philosophy, with an economy that serves the one percent at the expense of the rest of society is a growing phenomenon throughout Europe and in the United States as well. The Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump phenomena are but one example of a frustrated public sensing something is very wrong with society and looking for a way out....

Is Brexit the first victory in a larger freedom movement? Can we get out of a system that creates money out of thin air to benefit the ruling class while impoverishing the middle class? Can we get out of a central bank that finances the wars that make us less safe? Can we exit Executive Orders? Can we exit the surveillance state? The PATRIOT Act? Can we exit NDAA and indefinite detention? Can we exit the US worldwide drone program, that kills innocents overseas and makes us ever-more hated?...

The act of exit is liberating. We should make a longer list of those things we would like to get out of. I am only getting started.

Note from Ed.: I trust Mr Paul won't mind my showing his words in blue. Unlike in the Excited States of America, blue is the colour of conservatism in Britain, Canada and many other democratic countries. Red is the colour of socialism, communism and the extreme left. Think The Red Flag. The reversal of these colours in the politics of the USA is yet another example of "American exceptionalism". Think weirdness.

VIDEO: Bill Maher calls BS on "shared values" with Muslims

Chrystia Freeland is your archtypical limousine liberal. She is the daughter of privilege, a member of Canada's elite, the Member of Parliament for one of Toronto's wealthiest areas. A darling of the Canuck lamestream media, she was recruited by Justin Trudeau and promised a seat at the cabinet table if his Liberal Party won last fall's election. Which they did. And now she's Canada's Minister of Trade.

As such, she gets to swan around the world preaching the benefits of globalization, free trade agreements and (of course) helping all the poor people of the Third World. Canadians learned only today that Ms Freeloader was in Manila on November 19th, just two weeks after the new government was sworn in, while it was pushing for the resettlement of 25,000 refugees in the Great Not-so-white North. She had a government Challenger -- excellent planes, by the way -- standing by to take her home, but instead booked herself through LAX, charging Canuck taxpayers nearly C$20,000 ($15,600 in real money) for a to Hollywood.

Why? So she could appear on the HBO program Real Time with Bill Maher! During Question Period in the Canadaian House of Commons today, Conservative MP Blane Calkins called her appearance "a vanity interview". She took part, along with Senator Angus King Jr (Ind., Maine), in a discussion on how liberals rush to defend Syrian refugees and Muslims without acknowledging that many embrace a value set that is not shared with most Americans. In Mr. Maher's opinion, "This idea that somehow we do share values, that all religions are alike, is bullshit, and we need to call it bullshit." Check it out...

Can America ever be united again?

The Glorious War of the Secession (aka the War Between the States or the Civil War) ended 151 years ago, at which time America was proclaimed once again to be the United States. Now, in the twilight of the Obama presidency, which was supposed to bring all Americans together at last, regardless of race, colour, etc etc, the people of America (if not the states) find themselves more disunited than at any time in the last century-and-a-half.

That is the theme of Rick Perlstein's Nixonland, recommended here on Sunday. Mr. Perlstein dates the present polarization American culture and politics from the hippy-dippy 60s, which saw the disintegration of the liberal consensus of the Kennedy-Johnson years and the division of the "United" States into two mutually antagonistic nations -- the Red Nation and the Blue Nation. That division is not just geographic. There are plenty of "Reds" (not the Communist variety) to be found in Massachusetts and California, and "Blues" in Kansas and -- dare I say it -- Texas.

Hellery Clinton claims that she is the one and only candidate for POTUS who can bring the country together again, and make the American states and people united. This is laughable. About the only thing that unites the Reds (and large numbers of Blues) is the belief that Ms Clinton is a phony and a crook. Even if Hellery were sincere and (God forbid) elected, the task of uniting the country is beyond the power of any more mortal. Here's what Mr. Perlstein says in the closing paragraphs of his book:

What Richard Nixon left behind was the very terms of our national self-image: a notion that there are two kinds of Americans. On the one side, that "Silent Majority", the "nonshouters". The middle-class, middle American, suburban, exurban, and rural coalition who call themselves, now, "values voters", "people of faith", "patriots", or even, simply, "Republicans" -- and who feel themselves condescended to by snobby opinion-making elites, and who rage about un-Americans, anti-Christians, amoralists, aliens.

On the other side are the "liberals", the "cosmopolitans", the "intellectuals", the "professionals" -- "Democrats". Who say they see shouting in opposition to injustice as a higher form of patriotism. Or say "live and let live." Who believe that to have "values" has more to do with a willingness to extend aid to the downtrodden than where, or if, you happen to worship -- but who look down on the first category as unwitting dupes of feckless elites who exploit sentimental pieties to aggrandize their wealth, start wars, ruin lives.

Both populations -- to speak in ideal types -- are equally, essentially, tragically American. And both have learned to consider the other not quite American at all. The argument over Richard Nixon, pro and con, gave us the language for this war.

Do Americans not hate each other enough to fantasize about killing one another, in cold blood, over political and cultural disagreements? It would be hard to argue that they do not. How did Nixonland end? It has not ended yet.

A reader has objected that Rick Perlstein wrote those words in 2008, before the election of Barack Hussein Obama, the first black (or African-American, whatever) President, the one who has healed America and brought all Americans together. Has the Prez himself not said that race relations in the USA are better now than at any time in history? Well yes, that's what he said, but the claim that the war of which Mr. Perlstein writes ended somewhere between 2008 and 2016 is nonsense. If anything, the cracks in the American body politic have widened, and the war has intensified.

The 2015 American Values Survey, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, is titled "Anxiety, Nostalgia, and Mistrust". It found that about three-quarters of Republicans believe that the federal government looks out for the interests of blacks, Hispanics, gays and women. But not quite half of Republicans think that the government looks out for Christians or middle-class people. Democrats, on the other hand, overwhelmingly think that the federal government looks out for the rich and big business.

Writing in the Economist this week, "Lexington" asserts that the distrust between groups exposed in the survey means that "it is not useful to say that most Americans support policy X or Y. The real question fo ask voters is: Do you think this policy helps or hurts 'people like you'? The query reliably exposes deep gulfs between different races, generations and parties." Which is just what Mr. Perlstein said, eight years ago.

Footnote and caveat: When I recommended Nixonland, I should have included a warning that Mr. Perlstein is badly in need of an editor/proofreader. [Does anyone, anywhere, employ proofreaders any more? What's wrong with Spiel-Chequer? Ed.] His book runs to 748 pages of fairly dense type, and that's not counting the endnotes. And where, I wonder, does the author get words like "inspirit" (for "inspire", I guess)? If you want to finish Nixonland before you vote, start now.

Lamestream media moan about backlash against Muslim "refugees"

Walt is wetting himself (almost) reading the sob stories in the liberal lamestream media about how the racist and Islamophobic Europeans are turning against the waves of "refugees" and asylum-seekers washing up on their shores. Worst of all are the Canadian meeja, led by the state-owned CBC, who smugly assure their audience that the "failure of human compassion" would never happen in Canada. Canadians, they say, overwhelmingly support the welcoming of 1000s of aliens who won't integrate into their supposedly multicultural society any better than will those who the Europeans now seek to get rid of.

Typical of the tripe that's being fed to gullible Canucks is "The refugee crisis is shredding the cords that bind Europe", commentary by Kelly McParland in the so-called National Post. In the FB comments section following the piece, one perceptive reader calls Mr. McParland an "ethno-masochist, multiculturalist shill". [Don't you wish you'd thought up "ethno-masochist"? Ed.]

Be that as it certainly is, I'm going to repost a large chunk of the blog, because, even if the slant is wrong, Mr. McParland has the facts right. The Europeans don't want any more refugees. In fact, they'd like to send those who have already snuck into their countries back where they came from. That's a fact!

In Europe [Mr. McParland writes], one flood is running into another. The tide of refugees pouring across the Mediterranean in search of a new life is meeting a counter-flow of antagonism from countries increasingly unprepared to grant them their wish.

Dishearteningly, staunch resistance is now coming from some of the wealthiest countries. A Dutch proposal would have Syrians landing in Greece put on a boat straight back to Turkey. Denmark has passed a law allowing it to collect valuables from refugee claimants to pay their costs. Sweden’s Interior Minister said this week some 80,000 asylum-seekers -– about half the total -– could be deported if Stockholm can find enough planes for them. Not to be outdone, Finland revealed it expects to reject 65% of asylum applicants....

Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron this week dismissed refugees gathered in France as "a bunch of migrants" and rejected any suggestion they should be allowed into Britain.... The EU government in Brussels, meanwhile, has taken to blaming Greece –- easily it’s [sic] weakest member -– for failing to keep the tide from spreading beyond its borders.... Brussels is now threatening to impose border controls if Athens can’t find a way to save the other 27 member countries from being afflicted with the migrants.

The most dramatic shift remains in Germany, however, where there is a very real chance the coalition government of Chancellor Angela Merkel could unravel.... Merkel is scrambling desperately to convince other European powers they must act together if the EU is to survive. A poll released Friday found 40% of Germans feel Merkel should resign over her handling of the situation. She was able to hold her government together this week only by agreeing to new restrictions demanded by her two main allies, Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, and Bavarian Premier Horst Seehofer.

Seehofer in particular has pressured Berlin to tighten the liberal policies championed by Merkel, who argues that Germany has a historical responsibility to aid as many asylum-seekers as possible. He wants a cap on the number Germany will accept, and an expanded list of "safe" countries from which applicants will be rejected.

Critics complain that thousands of people from North Africa have sought to take advantage of the chaos to claim refugee status in wealthier European countries. Norway said recently it would send home thousands of Russians who have crossed into the country by bicycle after spotting a loophole in immigration laws.

Merkel has shown herself to be among the most adroit leaders in the western world. But after more than a decade at the top of the European pole, the ground beneath her may be collapsing. It could swallow her, as well as Europe as a union. Built to avoid war, it could fail over the limits of human compassion.

On this side of the water (Walt speaking now), Canada's Liberal government keeps saying it will admit 25,000 "refugees" by the end of February, and as many as 50,000 by the end of 2016, whether Canadians like it or not, and whether the migrants want come of not. See "Surprise! Syrian refugees welcomed by Canada want to go home", WWW 25/1/16.

South of the world's longest undefended border, Barack Hussein Obama thinks the Paranoid States of America should be able to accommodate a mere 10,000 of the tired, wretched, huddles masses. His likely success, Donald Trump, thinks that's 10,000 too many, and numerous public opinion polls suggest many more Americans agree with the Donald than with the Prez.

Assuming the USA effectively slams the door on the "refugees", that would seem to leave Canadians as the only ones foolish enough to let their deluded liberal elites (Hello, Kelly McParland!) lead them, lemming-like, over the cliff to societal suicide.

German "Willkommenskultur" worn thin by ill-fitting "refugees"

Looks like German Chancellor Angela Merkel won't be winning the Nobel Peace Prize after all. Just last month she was rumored to be a strong contender for having opened the Fatherland's doors to a tsunami of Arab and African "refugees". "Asylum has no upper limit", she told the Herrenvolk. Besides, she argued, even if they're not all real refugees, Germany needs immigrants to work and pay taxes and support the aging native-born population.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? It's the same line being pushed throughout western Europe and North America by politically correct politicians and the liberal mainstream media. The stone truth is that "immigration is good for the host countries" is the veriest bullshit -- one of the greatest lies being of the last half-century.

Just today, the Toronto Red Star -- the official organ of the Canadian immigration and multicult lobbies -- has a lengthy article headed "Toronto holds onto its shameful title: Child poverty capital of Canada". The article is chock-full of statistics which prove, inter alia, that the "pockets of poverty" in Toronto the good coincide geographically with the ghettos which are home to tens of thousands of immigrants from Somali, Jamaica and other third-world shitholes. Here's one of them now...

Meet Hawo Ali, aged 53, who immigrated from Somalia in 1992. She had five children when she came to Canada, and has added another six since -- total 11. It might have been more, but her husband left her in 1999, leaving her to raise all those kids alone. She sells samosas and does a bit of sewing to raise a bit of income, and Walt says good for her. Any additional money to needed to keep a roof over her family's heads and food in their bellies, and pay for her and their education and health care, comes from Canadian taxpayers. Net benefit to Canada? Negative!

As many as 10,000 migrants like Ms Ali are arriving in Germany every day, according to Margaret Wente's article in today's Globe and Mail. She tells us that "Smugglers are bringing in underage children and dropping them off by the side of the highways in the middle of the night. Public services are overwhelmed. School authorities say they need 25,000 new teachers for the kids. Local officials are scrounging for places to house people. They say they’ve reached the limit."

Ms Wente refutes the claim of the liberal elites that Germany needs migrants "to subsidize their pensions, replenish their aging population and address a growing shortage of skilled workers. That would make sense [she writes] if the migrants were a lot like Germans. But they’re not. Only a small number of the newcomers are well-educated professionals. Many more are illiterate, traumatized, children, or old. The majority are young men, with few skills and nothing to do. Almost none speak German. They are a poor fit with Germany’s highly skilled, rigidly structured labour market.

"Their cultural values are a poor fit, too. As one editorial writer commented, 'Ultra-religious Muslims – and Christians – are coming face to face with a society that is indifferent to religion. Newcomers with rigid moral codes must learn to deal with the fact that in Germany gay people can openly kiss each other.'

"The refugees are also a poor fit with one another. There are Muslims and Christians, Sunnis and Shiites, Kurds, Albanians and Kosovars. They bring their ethnic tensions with them. Clashes are common in the overcrowded refugee shelters. Police say that the task of reconciling refugee factions and protecting immigrants from right-wing German groups has pushed them to their limits."

"Leaders across Europe are discovering [Ms Wente concludes] that high-minded ideals and lofty sentiments aren’t enough to persuade the public that open doors and porous borders are a good thing. And even people who admire Ms. Merkel are wondering if she has made the biggest blunder of her career."