Donald Trump Trolls Londonistan Like a Boss…

Trump
ODD ANDERSEN,ATEF SAFADI/AFP/Getty

President Trump has offended pretty much the entirety of Britain’s political and media establishment up to and including the Prime Minister, the Mayor of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury. As a result, the Special Relationship is once more in jeopardy, and Trump has decided to cancel a planned working visit to the United Kingdom.
In a moment I shall explain why the president is right and his critics are wrong. But first a brief recap of what the fuss is all about.

Trump’s critics objected violently – or so they have publicly claimed – to three of his Twitter retweets.

These retweets showed videos, purportedly of members of the Religion of Peace (TM) behaving less than peacefully.

One depicted a bearded Muslim destroying a statue of the Virgin Mary.

One showed an Islamist mob pushing a teenage boy off a roof and then beating him to death.

One showed a white Dutch boy on crutches being gratuitously beaten up by a man described in the video caption as a “Muslim migrant”.

Prime Minister Theresa May; Mayor of London Sadiq Khan; and many other politicians professed themselves to be appalled by this. As was BBC news, which made this horror its lead story.

But it wasn’t the sadistic brutality on any of the videos that bothered them. It was the fact that the person whose tweets the President had retweeted, Jayda Fransen, is the deputy of a nationalistic, anti-immigration political party highly critical of Islam called Britain First

“Ich bin ein Berliner”

JFK’s words (which actually mean “I am a doughnut”, but never mind) have been popular since the latest terrorist atrocity – as of course they inevitably would. We all know well enough, by now, the standard operational procedure that all right-thinking people adopt whenever someone from the Religion of Peace commits another mass murder.

First, the snappy hashtag phrase of solidarity: #jesuischarlie #prayfororlando#ichbineinberliner

Then the decorating of your Facebook/Twitter profile in the colours of the flag of the latest victim country. So: red, gold, and black are this month’s red, white, and blue.

Then the candlelit vigils.

Then the hipster playing “Imagine” on a wonky piano in an impromptu and entirely unexpected gesture near the scene of the atrocity.

Then the visit by politicians vowing that the people will remain defiant in the face of this outrage.

Then the good news story about some Muslims who were brave and/or nice – usually members of the persecuted Ahmadi branch of Islam – which proves that it is a Religion of Peace really.

Then the caravan of grief moves on. Till the next atrocity. And so on and so on ad infinitum.

We’ve all noticed this stuff, many times over. And most of us find it properly sick-making. But there’s one other element in the standard left-liberal playbook response to these terrorist atrocities which, I think, hasn’t been widely noted yet. And I think it should be because it’s as least as disgusting and lame and feeble and hypocritical and dishonest and cowardly and succour-to-the-enemy-giving as any of the responses I’ve listed above.

I’m talking about the Blame Nigel Farage response.

We saw a perfect example of this in the immediate aftermath of the Berlin atrocity earlier this week when the chattering classes on social media very quickly made up their hive mind who the guilty party was in the Christmas market massacre-by-truck.

Was it, perhaps, the ISIS-inspired terrorist who killed a Polish truck driver, commandeered his vehicle, drove to a crowded Christmas market in the centre of Berlin, turned off the headlights and then accelerated into the crowd of men, women, and children, killing at least a dozen and maiming many more?

Of course not!

The very worst, most evil and culpable person in the world the day after the Berlin massacre was – in the view of progressive types on Twitter and on the BBC and in The Guardian – Nigel Farage.

But what could Nigel Farage possibly have done wrong that was worse than killing lots of people going about their shopping in a Christmas market in Germany?

Well, he’d done the terrible thing of saying this in a tweet:

Terrible news from Berlin but no surprise. Events like these will be the Merkel legacy.
You might be wondering what the problem is here. Me too. I think it’s perfectly arguable, indeed entirely reasonable, to suggest that Angela Merkel’s bizarre experiment to invite over a million “refugees” of mostly Muslim extraction into her country was primarily responsible for this terrorist attack. Thinking this doesn’t make you a bad person or an “Islamophobe”. It’s a simple numbers game: the more Muslims you invite in the greater the likelihood that among them will be unfriendly ones bent on doing great harm.

But to appreciate this basic, obvious truth is to think clearly and logically – which is not something the liberal-left likes to do. What it much prefers to engage in is emotive demagoguery, dubious moral equivalence and cynical smearing of the type we see expressed in this response to Farage’s tweet by a left-wing activist called Brendan Cox.

@Nigel_Farage blaming politicians for the actions of extremists? That’s a slippery slope Nigel

Cox is keen to promote the idea that extremists from the “far right” are just as big a threat as “Islamist” ones.

On the day after the massacre, he tweeted:

Far right &Islamist extremists share same hate driven psychology, intolerance towards difference& tendency to violence. We must defeat both
Well, it’s a point of view, certainly. But if you ask me it’s a crass, ignorant, and irresponsible one. What on earth does the “far right” have to do with a mass murder of innocent shoppers committed by a follower of Islamic State? And how does the comparison add anything useful to the debate? It doesn’t: it does the exact opposite. It’s a classic piece of liberal-left “whataboutery”, of intellectual evasion, of progressive smearing.

“Right wing extremists are just as big a problem as Islamist terrorists,” it seeks to tell us.

And: “Let’s not seek to point the finger of blame at any ideology in particular.”

And: “But do let’s blame the kind of people who think mass immigration is a bad thing because their ‘intolerance towards difference’ is what’s really causing all this violence.”

So I’m really not surprised that Nigel Farage chose to take Cox to task on LBC radio.

Hours after the Twitter exchange between the two, Mr Farage went on LBC radio and said: “Well, of course, he would know more about extremists than me, Mr Cox, he backs organisations like Hope Not Hate, who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful but actually pursue violent and very undemocratic means.”

What does surprise me – though it shouldn’t: I’ve seen often enough how these people roll – was the speed with which the news cycle shifted its attention. One minute we were being invited – quite properly – to focus on the latest appalling atrocity committed in the name of the Religion of Peace. The next – ooh look, a dickie bird! – everyone from the BBC and The Guardian, to various rentaquote Labour MPs, plus the usual suspects on Twitter had decided that the real story of the day was how disgusting and culpable people on the right were, especially Nigel Farage.

MP Tracy Brabin, who replaced Mrs Cox in her Batley and Spen constituency, said: “Beggars belief… A new low for Farage.”

Chris Bryant, the Rhondda MP and former shadow Commons leader, said: “The sheer nastiness of Farage sometimes takes my breath away.”

Chesterfield MP Toby Perkins added: “When your entire career has been built on hate, not hope, it perhaps shouldn’t shock me, but Farage still sinks lower than I’d have believed.”

Jess Phillips, MP for Birmingham Yardley, wrote on Twitter: “I hope Farage never ever feels the pain we feel about Jo, because unlike him I am not a monster.”

Again, it’s worth asking: what had Nigel Farage done or said wrong to justify phrases like “sheer nastiness” and “monster”? And if Nigel Farage is a “monster”, what term would you use for the Tunisian guy who murdered that Polish truck driver and then deliberately ploughed the vehicle into a Christmas market full of kids?

I think we need to be absolutely clear here: these people have no claim whatsoever to the moral high ground. They are stupid, wrong, and evil.

In December 2016, as throughout this year and last and the one before, innocents have been butchered by a merciless creed which deliberately sets out to kill and maim by whatever means. And instead of facing up to this threat and asking important questions like “how did this come about?” and “how can we deal with it?”, all these left-wing virtue-signallers in the Labour party, at The Guardian, at the BBC, and on Twitter want to do is duck the issue by pointing in the direction of their favourite bugbear “the far right” instead.

Here is Owen Jones playing the game in The Guardian:

No more pussyfooting around: Nigel Farage and his associates have poisoned our country’s political culture, and it’s time to push back. Their offensive – in every sense of the word – has been so swift, so devastating, that we risk normalising it.

Here is the left-wing comic Mark Steel trying it on in the Independent with some satire which works really well if you’re a doctrinaire left-winger and Hope Not Hate fan who believes Brexit was a disaster and that what Europe needs right now is more unchecked immigration, from the Middle East and North Africa especially.

What has fuelled their moral indignation is the fact that Brendan Cox is the widower of Jo Cox, the MP who was murdered in the streets during the EU referendum campaign by a loner with neo-Nazi sympathies called Thomas Mair.

I have never spoken to, read, or met anyone on the Brexit side of the argument who was any less appalled by Jo Cox’s murder than people on the Remain side were. Yet ever since her senseless death at the hands of a vile individual, elements in the Remain camp have sought to pin her murder on the “rhetoric” used by the Brexit camp, especially by people like Nigel Farage.

(This is a common trope of the regressive left – and has been since at least the 2011 shooting of Arizona Democrat politician Gabrielle Giffords, which the liberal media also did its best to blame on right-wing rhetoric rather than on a sad, confused, angry nut-job.)

Probably the most egregious example of this was a piece by David Aaronovitch in The Times, which I wrote about under the headline “Aaronovitch: Brexit campaigners kinda, sorta killed Jo Cox MP”

Few people have pushed this notion more assiduously than Brendan Cox himself – who donated a large chunk of the memorial fund raised in Jo Cox’s honour to the dubious charity Hope Not Hate, whose speciality is to promulgate this same misleading line – that the “far right” is an equivalent threat to fundamentalist Islam.

No doubt in doing so Brendan Cox believes he is honouring his wife’s memory.

The problem is that the “good work” Brendan Cox believes his wife was doing before she died is anathema to over half the country – and indeed to millions of people in Europe whose countries have been swamped by the kind of mass immigration that the Coxes believed would be good for them.

That’s why the Remainers lost the referendum: because, contrary to the assertions of campaigners like Jo and Brendan Cox, British people had had quite enough of unchecked immigration and could not see the benefits of remaining shackled to a sclerotic, anti-democratic, supra-national bureaucracy within the European Union.

However, the response of the losing Remainers (the 48 per cent) has not been to accept with good grace the democratic will expressed by the Brexiteers (the 52 per cent). Rather it has been to fight, fight, fight the result with whatever means, fair or foul, come to hand and to try to ensure that Brexit never happens.

Among the fouler means the Remoaners have sought to use to get their way is to try to blacken the motives and character of anyone who voted Brexit, while claiming for themselves the moral high ground as ordinary decent people who represent the “British values” of tolerance and fairness and who are appalled by the supposed outbreak of post-Brexit “hate crimes” in a country they claim not to recognise anymore.

It goes without saying that this is pure propaganda based on the flimsiest of evidence, most of it anecdotal or simply made up.

But it’s a line that has caught the imaginations of the losing Remain camp and their friends in the media, not least thanks to Brendan Cox himself.

Whatever phrase you use to describe Cox’s activities since his wife’s murder, “maintaining a dignified silence” wouldn’t be one of them. This was especially noticeable in the tense days before the referendum vote, when he invoked his late wife’s memory to promote this popular Remain trope: that the language being used by the Brexit camp was inflammatory and dangerous and somehow unBritish.

“I think she was very worried that the language was coarsening, that people were being driven to take more extreme positions, that people didn’t work with each other as individuals and on issues, it was all much too tribal and unthinking,” Mr Cox said.

“She was particularly worried – we talked about this regularly – about the direction, not just in the UK but globally, the direction of politics at the moment, particularly around creating division and playing on people’s worst fears rather than their best instincts.”

He has continued to promote this view ever since – taking advantage of the significantly higher media profile which he gained as a result of his wife’s death and finding a ready audience at parti-pris, pro-Remain media organisations like the BBC for his left-leaning, pro-immigration, anti-Brexit opinions. This Christmas he has been given still more space to promote his views by Channel 4 which has chosen him to broadcast their Alternative Christmas Message.

Is there, perhaps, some special rule whereby if you have been tragically widowed, you get a free pass to spout unchallenged whatever views you like in public – even if the cause you are supporting is potentially very dangerous and certainly very offensive to well over half the population?

Brendan Cox’s many admirers in the Remain camp – on the regressive left and in Hope Not Hate most especially – would seem to think so.

I got a small taste of this myself when, at the height of the Farage/Cox spat, I tweeted:

“When are we allowed to say that Brendan Cox is a total arse?”
There are worse insults in the English lexicon than calling someone a “total arse” – as I was reminded by the large number of responses I got from Hope Not Hate virtue-signallers telling me as I was a “c***”. My view on this remains as it was when I tweeted it: that if you’re going to express suspect opinions in the public arena, then you should expect to be called on them, no matter how tragic your personal circumstances. Of course, Cox deserves sympathy as a widower; this does not, however, give him carte blanche to promulgate – uncriticised – the kind of political viewpoint which, unfortunately, goes a long way towards explaining the wave of terrorism we are experiencing in Europe today.

For about 24 hours, I experienced what Nigel Farage has to put up with pretty much every day of his life – and has done for the last 25 years. Wave after wave of self-righteous lefties pouring vitriol, wishing death on me, calling me the worst names they could think of in their limited imaginations.

I’m perfectly OK with the insults. I’m used to it. It’s a technique popular with the regressive left known as “point and shriek” and “isolate and swarm”. The purpose – as Vox Day explains in this SJW attack survival guide – is to frighten you, isolate you, and silence you. And the key thing is to recognise it for what it is and not be upset by it – and definitely not apologise.

But what I cannot tolerate or forgive – and nor should you – is when these scum-sucking regressive types think they have the right to judge and to take the moral high ground.

Farage was absolutely right when he said in that tweet that the massacre in Berlin was a direct result of the Merkel legacy.

John R Bradley puts it well in the Mail:

The undeniable reality is that Europe’s breathtakingly reckless open-door immigration policy has provided a perfect cover for Islamic State to further its bloody, anti-Christian agenda.

Undeniable and real it may be – but the regressive left shows, as yet, absolutely no sign of accepting it or engaging with it.

This is why I have a very special Christmas message to all those people who attacked Nigel Farage for telling the truth about the Berlin massacre, and to all those who called me a “c***” for being rude about Brendan Cox.

You are the reason Donald Trump won the US Presidential election; you are the reason 17.4 million people voted for Brexit; you are the reason the European Union is collapsing. You are hateful, bigoted and – for all your hypocritical pretences to the contrary – fascistic.

You are an intellectually spavined, moronic, self-righteous and disgusting losers who have been shown by the events of 2016 to be on the wrong side of history. There is nothing noble or worthy or decent about your ranting rage: it is the fury of a vampire stuck with a stake, realising as he shrieks his last that finally the good guys have ended his reign of terror.

I leave you, as a treat, with the delicious words of Owen Jones in the Guardian – as demented a case of psychological projection as it has ever been my amused privilege to witness.

We face a great danger, and not even those who will suffer because of it have realised just how grave it is. Intolerance and hatred have been legitimised across the western world. Dissent is becoming treason. That is bad enough. But there are other violent extremists who are being both radicalised and legitimised across the west. If we don’t take a stand now, new dark chapters are soon to arrive.

No, Owen, my fluffy little ephebe. It’s not my side that is guilty of any of that. It’s your side that has been doing this for decades – closing down free speech, demeaning people who dare to speak out, promoting hatred and violence while pretending to preach tolerance (so long as it’s tolerance of things you think it’s OK to tolerate).

You are unconscionable scum. Your philosophy has been responsible for causing untold misery across the world for over a century. The idea that any of you are able to take the moral high ground on anything is as risible as your threadbare arguments.

Still, the great thing is that you guys finally lost in 2016. Happy 2017 everyone – it can only get better from here on in.

The One Where James Smokes Weed with Dave; Gets Told Off for Talking Like Trump

You’ll especially enjoy the bit at the end where I let slip a Trumpian crudity, get told off by Isabel, and am forced to pay for her lunch as a punishment.

Also, you’ll hear the true story of how she persuaded me to go on the record about my youthful drug indiscretions with David Cameron for her unauthorised biography – co-written with Lord Ashcroft – Call Me Dave.

Basically – spoiler alert – it’s because I’m a fan. When she’s on BBC Question Time Oakeshott is one of the very few panellists you can always rely on to talk straight. This is much, much harder than you think: it requires balls of steel and an indifference to what other people think bordering on the autistic.

Everyone at home always thinks they could do better but when you’re sitting there with the cameras and a (usually) hostile audience in front of you, it’s all too tempting to mouth platitudes that will earn you a round of applause. The technical term for this is “virtue-signalling”. It is, of course, disgusting, insincere and makes for extremely dull viewing – but almost everyone does it, politicians especially. (The only politician who never does it is Nigel Farage: telling it exactly like it is is his brand.)

Another of Oakeshott’s strengths is that she rarely displays any obvious urge to suck up to the Establishment. I shan’t name names but I’ve never failed to be mildly nauseated by the way so many of my journalistic contemporaries have trimmed their sails over the years, according to whichever bunch of shysters happen to be holding the reins of power. It’s understandable, I suppose, for journalists – political ones especially – to want simultaneously to feel part of the Inner Circle and not sound too remote from the prevailing political fashions. But it makes for damn dull journalism; dishonest, compromised journalism too.

Oakeshott doesn’t believe in career safety. It was a tremendous risk, you could argue, for her to team up with David Cameron’s avowed antagonist Lord Ashcroft to write an unauthorised biography at a time when Cameron was still a figure of some significance and expected to crown what was then thought to be a successful Prime Ministerial career by winning the EU Referendum for the Remain camp.

But she clearly prefers to be with the bad boys and the troublemakers, such as Farage’s mate and backer Arron Banks – with whom she recently co-wrote The Bad Boys of Brexit.

Despite Trump, despite Brexit, the liberal elite of the old Establishment is still very powerful – and more than capable of sabotaging the populist revolution that has made 2016 such a good year for most of us in this parish.

I’m still by no means convinced, for example, that the current British government can really be trusted to do the right thing with so many Remainers – including the Prime Minister Theresa May, and the Chancellor Philip Hammond – in the cabinet.

Entrenched Establishments will go to any lengths to protect their privilege as we saw in the immediate aftermath of Brexit when the Remain camp recovered its grip far more quickly than the Leave faction did – as it showed by sticking the knife into the Brexiteers’ main surviving prime ministerial candidate Andrea Leadsom with a ruthlessness I still find gobsmacking.

We discuss this in the podcast – Oakeshott feels as strongly about this one as I do. Yes, you could argue that the Brexiteers brought disaster on themselves as a result of the Blue-on-Blue action when Michael Gove took Boris Johnson and, as a consequence, himself out of the race.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Hong Kong Shows What Post-Brexit Britain Could Be

The success story that will always confound the left.

‘It’s like this,’ Rat explained, when the Fawn and I visited earlier this year. ‘If you want to get a cab somewhere urgent in the morning and you can’t speak good enough Cantonese then basically you’re stuffed. The drivers just swear at you and drive off. They haven’t got time to be wasting listening to dumb Gweilo trying to make themselves understood. In Hong Kong time is money.’

This was the first time we’d seen the Rat and his girlfriend in their new home and it was a joy to see how much happier they were. Pleasing as well to hear them so ardently channelling my political views. You’d think living with me would be enough to turn any child left-wing. But hearing them going on about how much they loathed the feckless, scuzzy, dole-scrounging culture they’d left behind them in Camberwell, I almost felt like Jeremy Corbyn listening to a treatise by Nigel Farage.

Read the rest at the Spectator.

Project Grief: Remain’s Dirty Politicking Has Hit an All-Time Low

The morning after a senseless tragedy which has appalled the whole of Britain I’d like to ask you a simple question:

Is there any depth to which you will not stoop in order somehow to snatch victory in this EU referendum?

The answer I’m getting from some of you is: “Nope. None.”

Here’s Alex Massie in the Spectator. Having generously acknowledged that “Nigel Farage isn’t responsible for Jo Cox’s murder. And nor is the Leave campaign”, he then suggests that no, actually, they were.

But, still. Look. When you encourage rage you cannot then feign surprise when people become enraged. You cannot turn around and say, ‘Mate, you weren’t supposed to take it so seriously. It’s just a game, just a ploy, a strategy for winning votes.’

Let me precis for you, Alex, what you’re trying to say in your oh-so-subtle way: “Vote Leave. Vote Fascism. Vote Murder in the Streets.”

Here, is the Guardian’s Polly Toynbee playing a similar game.

First the disclaimer:

There are many decent people involved in the campaign to secure Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, many who respect the referendum as the exercise in democracy that it is.

Now the inevitable “but…”

But there are others whose recklessness has been open and shocking. I believe they bear responsibility, not for the attack itself, but for the current mood: for the inflammatory language, for the finger-jabbing, the dogwhistling and the overt racism.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Sir Bob Geldof: Vote Remain If You’ve Got a Big Yacht and Hate Proles

Harsh words have been exchanged; collisions only narrowly averted; one fishing boat has drenched Geldof’s with a hose.

DSCF5251

Gosh: I wonder which group is more likely to enlist the sympathy of ordinary people still unsure which way to vote.

Will it be

a) the former – comprising boatloads of  fishermen whose livelihoods have been all but eradicated by Britain’s EU membership?

or

b) the latter – a gin palace commandeered by a multi-millionaire pillar of the global elite (who isn’t even a British subject and therefore not entitled to vote in this referendum) and packed to the gills with pro-EU reporters and members of the wankerati, blaring out noise from its extravagant sound system and pouring scorn on the smelly fisher proles nearby?

My personal guess is that it won’t be b).

In fact, if the Brexiteers do win this referendum, I suspect it will have less to do with anything they have said or done themselves than it has with the extraordinary arrogance of the Remainers.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Brexit Might Actually Win This Referendum. Here’s Why…

I’m reluctant to talk about it because I don’t want to jinx it. As I was saying to Toby Young on our podcast the other day, it feels as deliciously unlikely as going to a bar and accidentally picking up a supermodel. There she is laughing at your jokes, playing footsie with you under the table and you’re thinking: “Bloody hell! This is unreal! In just a few hours from now I could be romping naked with this vision of outrageous loveliness.” But you also know that if the Fates catch you being too cocky they’ll punish you for your hubris and do something awful, like revealing that the person you’ve actually pulled is Bruce Jenner.

Problem is, as a professional journalist, it is rather my duty to report the facts as I see them. And the facts as I see them seem to be pointing tantalisingly towards rampant sex with that supermodel. Possibly not just with one but with several, every day for the rest of our lives.

Yes, it’s still improbable – at least so far as the bookies are concerned. But whenever I nurture any doubts, all I have to do is open a newspaper or turn on the TV and see for myself just how incredibly badly the Remain campaign is screwing this one up and how well the Leave team are winning over the hearts and minds of the undecided.

What strikes me most is the difference in mood and tone: Remain sound shrill, petulant, pessimistic; Leave come across as amiable, reasonable, optimistic. And which of those sides would any open-minded person prefer to be on?

Consider last night’s referendum debate on ITV.

It pitched – for the Remain camp – SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon; Labour Shadow Business Secretary Angela Eagle; Tory Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd against – for Leave – Labour MP Gisela Stuart; Tory MP (and Rudd’s junior minister in her Climate Change department) Andrea Leadsom; and a token blond male former Mayor of London called Boris Johnson.

The Leave team were plausible, dignified, positive, level-headed. Stuart – a German speaking with soft persuasiveness for British values and sovereignty: yay! – may well be the most effective weapon in Leave’s armoury; Leadsom marked herself with her eloquence and passion as a potential future Tory prime minister; Johnson reined in his flamboyance, played it straight and gallantly left the ladies to steal the limelight.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Britain MUST Leave The EU Says David Cameron’s Strategy Guru Steve Hilton

Even from a known Brexiteer such as Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson or Michael Gove, these words would be pretty strong stuff. But coming from Steve Hilton, they are absolute dynamite: a devastating blow to the Remain campaign and – given that it was starting to look both unassailable and rather cocky – a perfectly timed one too.

It matters because Hilton, perhaps more than anyone, can lay claim to having “made” David Cameron, transforming him from an obscure backbench MP into Prime Minister material. Hilton has advised the Prime Minister on and off throughout his period in office and is still one of Dave’s closest friends. Well at least he was till the publication of this blistering broadside in the Daily Mail.

Here’s a taste:

It is anti-market, stifling innovation and competition with its statism, corporatism and bureaucracy.

It is anti-enterprise, acting in the interests of the big businesses that have corruptly captured the levers of power in Brussels through their shameless lobbying and insider deal-making, enabling a gradual corporate takeover of our country.

The European Union is anti-trade, locking developing countries out of world markets with its evil Common Agricultural Policy that feather-beds French farmers while keeping African farmers trapped in poverty — and despair.

and

Then we’re told that the EU is vital for our security. Really? I was pretty amazed when I first heard this point being made. The idea that a British Prime Minister can’t protect Britain properly without the EU is frankly astonishing and, if true, rather alarming.

But, of course, it’s not true. Yes, in a complex world of global threats, we need security co-operation with other countries — like what happens in NATO. Forgive me if I’ve missed something, but I wasn’t aware that this referendum is about leaving NATO.

and

But perhaps the most powerful argument for leaving the EU is to look at the people who are wheeled out to persuade us to stay: figures like the International Monetary Fund boss Christine Lagarde, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, advertising giant Sir Martin Sorrell, as well as the Confederation of British Industry and all the other Establishment stooges.

They want us to stay in the EU because their whole world depends upon it. Their lifestyle of summit meetings and first-class flights and five-star hotels; their flitting and floating from New York to Brussels to Beijing, serving the interests of the technocratic elite — the bankers, bureaucrats and accountants who run the modern world and who, regardless of which government is in power in which country, push the same old dogma of global-isation, privatisation and centralisation.

This represents by far the biggest blow to David Cameron personally and also to the credibility of his pro-EU argument since the official referendum campaign began.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Why Do the Vicious Remain Campaigners Value Emotion over Reason?

When you’re the odds-on favourite with the weight of the global elite behind you, you ought to be magnanimous.

Like a lot of keen games-players I’m a stickler for the rules. This is not because I’m an especially honourable person; merely a recognition that without a rigorous structure and a sense of fair play, a game can be no fun and winning can afford no satisfaction.

I feel much the same way about politics. Take Hilary Benn’s recent contribution to the Brexit debate, wherein he professed to have taken grievous offence at Boris Johnson’s use of the word ‘Hitler’ in an article about Europe. As was perfectly clear from the context, the reference was dropped in lightly and unhysterically in the service of an unexceptionable point. So the game Benn was playing there definitely wasn’t cricket. It was more like diving in the penalty area and appealing to the ref when the player who supposedly fouled you isn’t even close.

Is this a sensible way to fight a campaign? Possibly: we won’t know for sure until the votes are in. But if I were an undecided wondering where to place my X, I think the thing that would swing it for me would be the marked difference in tone between the two camps — with the Remainers coming across as shrill, prickly and bitter, and the Brexiters surprisingly sunny, relaxed and optimistic.

This isn’t what you might have expected at the start of the campaign. Really, it makes no sense. When you’re the odds-on favourite with the weight of the global elite behind you — Obama, Lagarde, Goldman Sachs, the BBC, Ed Balls — you ought to be able to afford to be magnanimous, jolly and decent. It’s the anti-EU rebels, the spoilers, the malcontents, you’d imagine would be most afflicted by rage, spite and peevishness.

But it hasn’t turned out that way. Yes, there has been some vicious factional backbiting between the different Brexit camps, I can’t deny that. The tone of their campaigning, though, has been almost weirdly upbeat: Boris larking about with Cornish pasties and angle-grinders; Gove batting off Marr with his effortless good cheer; Farage with his pint-and-fags common touch; Martin Durkin with his insightful, inspirational and often very funny crowd-funded documentary Brexit: The Movie.

Brexit: The Movie. With a title like that you’d know exactly what to expect: mostly middle-aged and elderly men, banging on about how much better things were when the atlas was coloured pink, all jingoism and xenophobia and thinly disguised racism. Except that’s not the film Durkin has made. (It’s free on YouTube or Vimeo, so see for yourself.)

Yes, the empire is referenced: but only to make the point that, contra the Remainers, our tiny rainswept island is quite capable of making its mark on the global stage without the help of its continental neighbours.

Read the rest in the Spectator.

Han Solo and Chewbacca Would Vote for Donald Trump and Nigel Farage

This is what I argued on BBC’s Daily Politics show yesterday in response to a New Statesman piece by left-leaning journalist Stephen Bush. According to Bush, the Star Wars series is essentially a celebration of “the left-wing values of solidarity and collective action”.

Hmm. The only bit of Bush’s convoluted thesis I agree with is where he describes Han and Chewie as “a pair of sole traders, equivalent to white van men.” Exactly. That’s why they vote for Britain’s nearest thing to the Tea Party: they are taxed enough already and just want to be left to get on with their lives, unencumbered by the depredations of the controlling monolith that is the Empire.

Given that Star Wars was written in the Cold War, I suppose the model for the Empire was the Soviet Union. Today, of course, its closest equivalent would be the European Union, only with one key difference: on their day, the Imperial Stormtroopers can be a pretty formidable and effective force, where  its EU equivalent – the European Army being proposed by President Jean-Claude Juncker – would be as crap as a platoon of transgendered Ewoks with their hands tied with rainbow ribbons and without the advantage of the forest which, as I dimly recall, is the only reason that stops them being as crap as they look.

Why would the European Union’s Imperial forces be as crap as a platoon of tied-up transgendered Ewoks with no arboreal advantage?

Well first because, unlike, say, the Fatherland or Blighty, a corrupt, amorphous, simultaneously insipid and toxic entity like the EU is not something for which any stormtrooper would consider laying down his life. And secondly because the German element would be too fat and pacifistic, the French would be too busy cooking five course lunches featuring ortolan and foie gras, the Italians’ AT-AT Walkers would only work in reverse, the Greeks would flog off all their kit to the Rebel Alliance, the Spanish would divide in factions and kill each other and the British just wouldn’t because we are NOT Europeans.

But I digress. There is really very little in Star Wars which offers much ideological comfort to those of a big government persuasion – big government being represented, after all, by a giant armoured orb, nudgingly named the Death Star, heralded with Wagnerian theme music – which crushes rebel planets by blowing entire civilisations including Princess Leia’s to smithereens and by tall evil men in black capes with advanced asthma or skin like a Gila monster’s.

There is, however, very much in Star Wars to suggest that ramshackle rebel alliances formed of shabby-looking, lovably eccentric, heroically determined social outcasts – see also: UKIP conferences; Tea Party rallies – may be our only hope against the growing tyranny of One Universe Government.

If you want a more sophisticated and involved analysis of why Star Wars is a Hayekian paradigm, here’s Zero Hedge’s Tyler Durden.

Read the rest at Breitbart.