Twitter Has Made Milo into Western Civilization’s Greatest Gay Hero Since Alexander. He’ll Hate That…

The main one is this: concede an inch of territory to the enemy and the enemy will destroy you. They are not reasonable. They are despicable. This is war.

If everyone on our side of the argument understood this we would have won this conflict long ago. Not only are we wittier, cleverer, better informed and more honest, unhypocritical and fundamentally likeable than the opposition – but we also have all the ammunition to win every battle we fight because reality has a conservative bias.

Unfortunately we have long laboured under a fatal weakness which has rendered all our advantages as of naught. Some call it “Cuckservatism”; others “a pathetic urge to be liked”; others “cleaving to the reasonable middle ground,” but however you anatomise it or describe it the result is the same. The enemy feeds on our weakness and gains in strength.

When you’re at Bastogne, surrounded by Nazis, the last thing you need is the guy twenty yards to your left abandoning his foxhole, allowing your entire company position to be outflanked. But this is what our own people do to us all the time.

Today, it’s our gallant comrade Brendan O’Neill’s turn to sell us short.

He has weighed into the Milo/Twitter/Leslie Jones debate and grabbed completely the wrong end of the stick with a piece entitled The Hounding Of Leslie Jones: Anti-PC Gone Mad.

Yep. Instead of recognising the business for what it is – a key battle in the liberal-left’s ongoing war on free speech – O’Neill has quixotically decided that the real villains of the piece are shady figures on the alt-right; and that the victim isn’t the innocent guy who got banned from Twitter, but the race-baiting cry-bully who engineered that ban.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Muslims Were the Real Victims of the Nice Terror Attack, the BBC Explains

And all because of the unfortunate and terribly unfair coincidence that the man who mowed down over 100 people in a truck just happened to be called Mohamed, of Tunisian descent, and allegedly yelling “Allahu Akbar” as he went about his murderous spree.

“The worst affected by these attacks are us, the Muslims. We have seen an increase in abuse and threats,” complains local man Ahmed Mohamed.

Another – Abdul Moniem – has some sage things to say about not pointing the finger of blame.

“You have to distinguish between different types of crime. Are these crimes that relate to terrorism? Or are these individual criminal acts? In this case what happened was a terrible crime and shouldn’t be treated as terrorism. The criminal who carried out this attack did not pray or fast…he had social and relationship problems. It was this that led him to hurt people.”

The BBC is very concerned about this outbreak of ‘Islamophobia’. That would be why it sent a reporter – also called Mohamed – to down to investigate.

But I’ve a strange feeling that not many of you reading this – unless, perhaps, your name is Mohammed, or you are LBC’s resident faux-Cockney dhimmi James O’Brien, or you work for the BBC yourself – are going to be shedding bitter tears for Nice’s Muslim community right now. In fact you may well suspect that reports like this are very much part of the problem not the solution.

This is what Douglas Murray argues in a Spectator piece entitled We need to tackle attacks like the one in Nice from the root.

It’s really not much different from the pieces he wrote after the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the Paris massacre. But then, barring a few details – innocents mashed with a truck rather than, as at Bataclan, either shot, blown up or tortured by having their testicles cut off or their vaginas stabbed – the situation remains just the same as it ever did: with the chattering classes, the politicians, most of the media, and virtually the entire Umma still in denial of the nightmare problem facing us.

That problem, gloss it how you will, has something to do with Islam.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Theresa May’s New Cabinet: Brexit Is on!

As an ardent Brexiteer, certainly, I feel a lot more optimistic about the future than I did two days when I penned this gloomy piece for the Spectator. (Gosh, I sounded so angry and bitter I could almost have been a Remainiac…)

Yes, of course, Amber Rudd is going to make a ghastly Home Secretary. Heaven knows, she was already promoted far beyond her talents as head of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Plus, she actually believes all the greenie crap. Plus, she came across quite appallingly during the EU Referendum campaign: strident, vindictive, easily bought, self-serving and a bit thick.

But the thing you need to remember about the position of Home Secretary is that it’s a poisoned chalice. So much can go wrong for you – and almost certainly will for her. So it won’t be too long before Rudd’s fox is shot, I’m guessing.

On the bright side, meanwhile, we’ve got a healthy quota of Brexiteers in the positions that could really make a difference:

David Davis: Secretary for exiting the European Union. Sound!

Liam Fox: International Trade. Sound!

Boris Johnson. Foreign Secretary. Well whether he’s sound or not is anyone’s guess – I personally believe he’ll be great – but if nothing else you’ve got to admit, his appointment is truly a piece of top trolling by Britain’s new Prime Minister, suggesting that she might even have a hidden sense of humour.

Already, I’m enjoying greatly the wailing and gnashing of teeth it has caused among the wankerati…

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Britain’s New Prime Minister Drives a Stake Through the Heart of the Green Vampire

Incoming Prime Minister Theresa May has driven a stake through the heart of her predecessor David Cameron’s fluffy, faux-Conservative project by scrapping the Department of Energy And Climate Change (DECC).

Established in 2008, DECC was a hangover from the Gordon Brown era of woeful misgovernance. Its first Secretary of State was future failed Labour leader candidate Ed Miliband whose only significant political achievement also happened to be one of the most expensive and pointless in British parliamentary history: the drafting of the truly disastrous Climate Change Act.

Under the terms of the Climate Change Act – written by a green activist from Friends of the Earth called Bryony Worthington; endorsed by Cameron’s Conservative opposition and rejected by only five MPs – Britain is legally committed to more stringent “decarbonisation” targets than any other country in the world, at an annual cost of around £19 billion a year.

Miliband’s successors, under the awful Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition government were even worse. For some bizarre reason probably not unconnected with utter fecklessness, green delusion and a fatuous desire to virtue signal, Prime Minister Cameron decided to hand over the keys to DECC to his Lib Dem Coalition partners.

So began probably the worst appointments since some bright spark said: “I know. Let’s make Gaius Verres Governor of Sicily.”

Sure, DECC might have seemed on the face of it a nothing department which could safely be handed over to the losers, perverts and half wits the Liberal Democrat party tends to attract. What appeared to have escaped the Prime Minister’s notice is that any department with the word “Energy” in the title – effectively puts the people who run it in charge of a goodly part of the economy.

First, the job was given to Chris Huhne, an automaton-like, Westminster-educated, millionaire Europhile ex-City boy with at least five houses to his name and a zealous urge to carpet the British countryside with wind farms and solar arrays.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

What the ‘Lady Macbeth’ E-mail Leak Tells Us about Michael Gove, Sarah Vine and Boris

She has to, if only out of self-preservation, because if she didn’t the house would get repossessed, the kids would be accidentally forgotten in the playground, and the family income would dwindle to nothing because of the stupid joke hubbie shouldn’t have made to the boss’s wife at the office party.

I know because I’m one of those utterly crap husbands. Most of us are, I suspect: it goes with the territory of being male.

We’re good at stuff we consider really important: sport; shooting animals; pub quizzes; making money; making passes; being irresponsible; fighting wars; beating rivals; grand strategy; saving the world; and so on.

But in our enthusiasm and optimism, we’re often really crap on detail like the need to read the boring small print and dot the i’s and cross the t’s on contracts because it rarely occurs to us in our air-headed, distracted, blokey way that something bad might happen. That’s where the wife comes in. Being female, she is not only more sensible but possibly more in tune with the ways of evil. Women spend their whole lives trying to scheme and destroy one another so they’re alive to this sort of thing in the way men are not.

This is the context in which we need to see this so called “Lady Macbeth” story, in which Michael Gove’s wife Sarah Vine has been caught out advising her husband not to trust his running mate Boris Johnson.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Why I’m Backing Boris Johnson and Michael Gove

More people – 17,410,742 – voted Leave last Thursday than have voted for anything else in Britain, ever.

No party or leader or cause has ever been so popular: not Winston Churchill, not Tony Blair, not Clement Atlee not Margaret Thatcher.

So how, you might wonder, is the British political establishment responding to this never-clearer signal from the people about what it is they really want?

Why, of course, by trying to put every possible object in their way to stop them.

 

Worst of the bunch, in my book, are all those Conservative MPs who are agitating to replace David Cameron when he goes with a Remain candidate such as Teresa May, in preference to the clear winner of the referendum Boris Johnson (who is supported by Michael Gove).

How does that work then?

Half of these MPs – Business Secretary Sajid Javid, Home Secretary Theresa May among them – were natural Eurosceptics who only opted to support Remain for tactical reasons: because they thought, with the Prime Minister and Chancellor onside, it was going to win and that it would be better for their career prospects when it did.

Surely, the only right and proper thing for them to do now is to acknowledge their error, support the popular will and put their weight behind the two Conservatives who did most to make Brexit possible: Team Boris and Gove?

Some people, I know, are still stupid enough to buy into the BBC/Guardian/Labour/Cameroon spin that Boris Johnson is a joke candidate who cannot be trusted near the nuclear button.

I remember hearing similar things about a presidential candidate called Ronald Reagan.

The “Boris is a clown” trope is just dark arts propaganda and sour grapes.

Boris Johnson’s team won this referendum fair and square. The people very clearly voted for Britain to Leave the European Union and that is what they must get.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Brexit: David Cameron Has Salted the Land, Poisoned the Wells for Boris

This is the question being asked right now by all the disgruntled Remainers who can’t quite get over the fact that they didn’t win.

And my answer is: are you deluded, mentally ill, a bunch of bitter, vexatious, reality-denying tossers or what?

Which is to say that the answer is so bleeding obvious I find it an insult that you should feign to ask.

Just cast your mind back to that distant and half-forgotten era all of five days ago when David Cameron still appeared to be a vaguely credible Prime Minister and Jean-Claude Juncker was so confident of a Remain victory that already he was boasting about how extravagantly the EU planned to shit all over us once we’d handed back the prison warders the keys.

Remember? Good. Then what you’ll also recall – now that it has all come flooding back to you – is that at the time the prospect of Brexit was literally unthinkable.

It was, I suggested, about as likely as me going to a bar and picking up a supermodel; then taking her home; then discovering that, no, she wasn’t in fact a ladyboy or Bruce Jenner or anything like that, but she was a really hot chick who actually wanted rampant sex. With me.

What made it unthinkable was that all the experts had lined up to tell us it was. First came President Obama warning us that we’d be banished like naughty boys to the back of something called “the queue”; then came all the other bigwigs from the IMF’s Christine Lagarde and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel to the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, all variously confirming with the expertise and authority of their office that no actually it would be worse than that: markets would crash, property prices would plummet, businesses would hurry to relocate, the pound would become as worthless as the Zimbabwean dollar, men would say openly that Christ and his saints slept etc. Oh, and also, of course, World War III would break out.

That last contribution came from David Cameron, whom you probably won’t remember now, but he’s the Prime Minister whose main career achievement – indeed possibly whose only career achievement – was to change Britain’s laws on gay marriage.

Look, I like gays as much as the next red-blooded heterosexual Dad. Some of my best friends are gay, one of them, unfortunately, being Milo. Plus, I was an enthusiastic instigator of homosexual acts at my prep school – I virtually invented it – so I know what it’s all about. I like gay clubs, gay music, gay culture. At Glastonbury just now, I queued up to join the Meat Market gay club where a handsome youth in drag at the entrance patted me down and affectionately squeezed my testicles while my wife looked on. In fact, if I didn’t prefer girls I would DEFINITELY be gay myself.

All that said, I think Gay Marriagewas an utterly silly thing for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to be wasting parliamentary time on – especially when it proved so divisive to the party Cameron professed to be so keen on uniting.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Better a Cocker Spaniel as Prime Minister than Theresa May…

But there’s one thing on which must agree. Better either of the above – or, frankly, a Cocker Spaniel – than the (current Home Secretary and lead rival contender) Theresa ruddy May.

Let me give you two reasons why.

First, May is fundamentally unsound. Earlier this year she claimed, without blushing, that “Sharia courts benefit Britain.” But there was an earlier indication she was a wrong ‘un in 2014 when she had a public spat with Michael Gove (who at the time was Education Secretary), over the best way to deal with Islamic extremism in Britain.

It began, you may remember, as a result of the Trojan Horse scandal when it emerged that a number of state schools in Birmingham had been hijacked by Islamists promoting an extremist agenda, with non-Muslim teachers marginalised, boys and girls segregated, teenage males taught that rape is legal within marriage, Islamic terrorists glorified and non-Muslims described as kuffar.

May – perhaps to duck responsibility and save her skin: as Home Secretary she’s supposed to be in charge of law and order and social cohesion – tried to pin the blame on Gove.

Gove struck back, as well he might. No one in the British government has been more keenly aware of the problems of Islamism than Michael Gove. He was on to it a decade ago when he wrote Celsius 7/7 – a book excoriating the cultural dhimmitude that had led to problems like the London bus and tube bombings.

Part of Gove’s argument has always been that it is simply not enough to combat Islamist terrorism. You also have tackle the root causes of the problem: madrassas teaching young British Muslims to despise the values of their own country; Wahabi and Deobandi imams, parachuted in from Pakistan and Saudi, preaching the most extreme form of Islam; inequality before the law endorsed by Sharia courts; sucking up to extremist “community leaders” and ignoring the peaceful majority; and so on – as well as more positive stuff, like encouraging Muslims to become better assimilated and more loyal to their host culture.

It’s known colloquially as the “drain the swamp” strategy. That is, it’s no good just bashing the crocodiles’ heads as they attack your canoe. If you want to sort out the problem long term, you have to neutralise the environment from which all those crocs are coming in to attack you.

May, on the other hand, is of the “don’t let’s make a fuss, let’s just deal with the crocodiles as and when they appear” school of thought.

Which of the two approaches, do you think, is most likely to secure long-term social cohesion and reduce the number of future terrorist attacks?

The row between the two got so heated that Gove was ordered by Prime Minister David Cameron to apologise to May.

Gove, it should be noted, is now supporting Boris Johnson’s candidature in the elections to become new Conservative leader and Prime Minister.

The second reason why Theresa May doesn’t deserve to be Prime Minister is because she backed the wrong side in the referendum.

She didn’t need to do so. It has long been rumoured that she has Eurosceptic sympathies. But when push came to shove, she decided to put petty ambition before principle and take what she thought was going to be the easy option: back the Establishment position and reap the rewards.

Had Remain won, she would have benefited accordingly.

It would be a monstrous injustice – not to mention an insult to the electorate – if, having backed the wrong horse for the most cynical of reasons, May went on to be rewarded with the highest office in the land.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Cameron’s Elite Will Stop at Nothing to Win This EU Referendum: Here’s Why We Mustn’t Let Them

If you really love David Cameron then there’s only one thing you can possibly do on Thursday. You must vote Remain to save his skin.

Not that he’s literally going to die, quite. If you vote Leave he won’t shrivel up and turn to dust like Dracula does in sunlight. But Cameron will most certainly experience the metaphorical equivalent: everything he has achieved (such as it is) will become as nought; his life’s ambitions will lie in tatters all around him; he will go down in history as one of politics’s also-rans – not a statesman like Churchill and Thatcher, certainly not a conviction politician like Enoch Powell, but as a bit of a space-wasting time-server like Ted Heath or Gordon Brown or his former bromance partner Nick Clegg.

Do you think this is how David Cameron plans to crown his political career: with a wreath made of bitter ashes, dabbing his eyes in the back of a black official limo, as Margaret Thatcher did when she was finally pushed out of Number 10?

If you do then you clearly have no understanding how viciously competitive this man is; nor indeed how viciously competitive most ambitious politicians are in a zero sum game like politics where there are no consolation prizes for the runners-up.

Cameron plays to win. I could tell you stories (but I won’t). Short of murder or selling his family to slave traders I suspect that there is very little that he would not do in order to achieve his Machiavellian political ends.

And I say this not because I think he’s an especially bad man (by political standards) and certainly not an evil man. Just because I’ve lived long enough and watched enough successful people up close and read Macbeth sufficiently often to see that this is what ambition does to you.

There comes a point – and Cameron has long since passed it – where you say to yourself:

“I am in blood/Stepp’d in so far that should I wade no more/Returning were as tedious as go o’er”.

This is the context in which we need to view Cameron’s behaviour in this EU referendum campaign.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Remain: When ‘Kinder, Gentler Politics’ Really Means ‘Dirtier, Uglier’

Will Straw, director of the Remain campaign, has been caught red-handed advising his team how to exploit Cox’s death by playing up the message that Leave represent “division and resentment” while only Remain represents “decent, tolerant Britain.”

This is what the left means by “dog-whistle” politics.

Only this time, it’s the left which is blowing that whistle.

Here, as Guido reports, is what Will Straw said in a highly embarrassing leaked audio file.

“We need to recognise that people have been pulled up short by Jo Cox’s death and it is now time to make a very positive case for why we want to be in the European Union… to call out the other side for what they have done to stir division and resentment in the UK.

That is something we must all do… This is what we think is the closing argument of the campaign, reflecting all the arguments that we have been setting out for many months but also the new context that we’re in. What we want to say is people should vote Remain on Thursday for more jobs, lower prices, workers’ rights, stronger public services and a decent, tolerant United Kingdom.”

The language is cautious, mealy-mouthed but the message is clear. To paraphrase: ‘Never mind the issues – just focus on Jo Cox. They didn’t buy Project Fear; they didn’t buy Project Lies; but they might just be sold on Project Grief.’

And Straw may have a point for, since the murder of Jo Cox, there has been a dramatic shift in Remain’s fortunes. Where before they were trailing in the polls, now they have pulled ahead.

Yes, there’s a story doing the rounds that this is because the public are becoming increasingly concerned about economic issues and that these favour Remain. But I suspect that this is just Remain spin to cover their own embarrassment at the unseemly way they’ve been using Jo Cox’s death to their advantage.

Here’s Katie Hopkins, telling it like it is:

Ask yourself what would have happened had it been Nigel Farage not Jo Cox slain on a pavement, whether they would have called for kinder Politics?

I suspect in some quarters they would declare he brought it on himself. How they laughed when his family were attacked whilst trying to enjoy a family lunch in a pub.

As we move into the final few days of the campaign, the ugly ambition of Remain will be to keep the Jo Cox story alive – at least in print – until June 23.

There is no end to the stunts set up to ensure this story has legs and keeps running – when most of us just want the family left in peace to grieve and find some sleep.

Regrettably for the state of British politics, she’s probably right.

First came the pilgrimage by the two main party leaders David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn – both pro-Remain – to lay wreaths in Cox’s constituency in Birstall, West Yorkshire and preach the virtues of “tolerance” and “democracy”. (More dogwhistling: if you don’t believe in these virtues than you must be Vote Leave).

Then yesterday, Parliament was recalled from its summer recess for a special sitting. Ostensibly to celebrate the life and the “kinder, gentler politics” apparently embodied by Jo Cox; but also, unfortunately, to allow campaigners like MP Stephen Kinnock – son of two of the EU’s more voracious apparatchiks Neil and Glenys – yet more dogwhistling opportunities by talking about “hope not fear, respect not hate, unity not division”. (Unity: you mean, like, in a “not leaving the EU” kind of way, Stephen?)

After that will come the funeral which – let us pray – will remain a private affair.

If you think this is normal procedure for when a parliamentarian is killed while in office, you’d be mistaken.

It didn’t happen after Conservative MP Ian Gow was assassinated with an IRA bomb in 1990.

Nor did it happen in 1979 when Airey Neave – a wartime hero (one of the few men to escape from Colditz) and also a personal friend of the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher – was murdered in similar fashion by another Irish Republican terror group the INLA.

Read the rest at Breitbart.