In left-wing Berlin, Germany, we now have a crackdown on advertising that would dare to depict women as “nurturing, happy to do housework, beautiful, addicted to shopping” or men as “rational, aggressive, technologically gifted”.

Get it? Ads must feature unpleasant, unattractive, angry feminists disposing of pathetically weak and foolish men.

Boys must not be shown as “liking sports, the colour blue, and playing with technology”. According to these German feminists(!), girls are so stupid and deficient by nature that when they “see images of heterosexual housewives, the consequence is that they cannot imagine themselves outside this framework.”

Meanwhile in Madrid, they banned ‘manspreading’. Because God Forfend that a man on a bus should sit a bit comfortably. Crowder explains it to women and gets some to admit to the existence of female privilege.

As you’ve probably heard, a UK man assaulted pedestrians with a vehicle last night.

What’s new and different is that, instead of the usual Muslim trying to kill infidels, he was an infidel trying to kill Muslims. Needless to say, his murderous actions were wrong and I condemn them.

What amazes me is that this sort of thing hasn’t happened sooner. European and UK authorities have chronically failed to protect their citizens from Islamic terrorists, prompting citizens to take matters into their own hands. It’s amazing that it took this long for one of their citizens to do so.

As an aside, I’m slightly puzzled by whether this attack should be called “terrorist”. In deciding what to call combatants, I have always used the following matrix:

• Uniformed soldiers attacking uniformed soldiers: Honorable combatants.
• Uniformed soldiers attacking civilians: War criminals.
• Civilians attacking uniformed soldiers: Irregular / guerilla forces.
• Civilians attacking civilians: Terrorists.

The underlying premise is that a war is going on. Islamic terrorists are called terrorists, in part because they are engaged in a war (against the infidels and/or to establish the supremacy of Islam). Or, as they call it, “jihad”.

If we call this UK guy a terrorist, we implicitly acknowledge that the UK (among others) is in a war with Islam and this particular combatant is on “our” side, however wrongly he goes about it. Do we not? Rather than do that, I’m inclined to just call this UK guy a lunatic mass murderer.

Feel free to let me know your thoughts. Again, due to the failure of UK and European authorities to protect their citizens from Islamic terrorists, a case could be made that the guy is a combatant in an ongoing war with Islam – albeit a degenerate combatant; a civilian attacking civilians – thus a terrorist.

So that’s what I’m stuck on…whether to call him a terrorist or a mass murderer?

Color me shocked.

His new series, _The Putin Interviews_, is controversial – meaning that the Left hates it, because it doesn’t tell them exactly what they want to hear. A couple of articles on it:

• Rolling Stone, 10 Most WTF Things We Learned From Oliver Stone’s Putin Interviews.

  Pans the series – splutters with outrage over Stone lobbing too many softball questions and bad-mouthing Hillary Clinton as a war-mongering neo-con – but covers some interesting tidbits along the way.

• Forbes’ take. Along the way, they go into some of the hacking / cybercrime issues, and the fact that the U.S. has interfered in Ukraine elections in a manner FAR beyond anything the American Left fantasizes with TrumpRussia.

Left and Right, we should be willing to watch these Putin interviews, if only on the principle of “Know your enemy”.

At a U.S. college, mobs of neo-Nazi alt-Right fascist thugs have been roaming the campus, smashing windows and bashing people they disagree with. Kristallnacht!

Except that it’s Evergreen College and actually, it’s mobs of leftie fascist thugs roaming the campus, smashing windows and bashing people they disagree with.

Weinstein, the professor at the center of the sh*t storm, is claiming some students were even hit, but says they won’t report it to the police.

Why is this not national news? One guess…

A few other items for you that touch upon the theme of immoral left-wingers and/or watching left-wingers’ heads explode, while the media focus strangely on other things.

• The House Oversight Committee states that, yes, President Obama and AG Holder obstructed investigation of Fast and Furious and, per Fox, “tried to hide the facts from the loved ones of slain Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.”
  

  “The Department of Justice and ATF had no intention of looking for honest answers and being transparent,” said Grassley, now chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a staunch supporter of whistleblowers.

  “In fact, from the onset, bureaucrats employed shameless delay tactics to obstruct the investigation.”

  ATF Agent John Dodson, one of those whistleblowers, confirmed Grassley’s testimony. He relayed to the Committee that the [Obama] DOJ has “tried to discredit him by subjecting him to internal investigations, putting him under surveillance, denying him promotions and ostracizing him.”

  RTWT.

• Courtney Love calls Linda Sarsour “a vile disgrace to women and all mankind.”
• Trump’s judicial nominations: Another thing he’s doing right.

Bonus item: France says no trace of Russia hacking Macron.

The head of the French government’s cyber security agency, which investigated leaks from President Emmanuel Macron’s election campaign, says they found no trace of a notorious Russian hacking group behind the attack.

About a month ago, I had noted the eagerness (and absurdity) of U.S. media in accusing Russia.

The first step to solving a problem for real, is: Naming it honestly.

As Mark Steyn points out (hat tip V), our leftie-globalist-academic Superiors want us to believe that “sowing division” is what’s wrong with the endless stream of mass murders by Muslim terrorists. Because the desirable opposite is “unity”, led by those same Superiors.

Thus, they subtly equate their critics with Muslim terrorists. If, say, you’re a free-market populist who rejects the elite consensus, you’re as bad as a Muslim mass murderer. Because you’re also “sowing division”.

It’s similar to how the Left represents “hate speech” (i.e., criticism or rejection of the Left) as a form of violence, unprotected by the First Amendment. Under such insane terms, the Left is allowed to attack you with physical violence because they are only protecting themselves from the “violence” that you were about to think, or say.

Re: the London attacks, British media says they were done by “men of Mediterranean coloring”. It has a courtroom precision to it, which is nice, but also don’t say Muslim.

London’s Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, did at least call them “cowardly terrorists”. And Prime Minister Theresa May slammed the “evil ideology of Islamist extremism” – but then went back to calling for “unity”, plus Internet censorship. As opposed to, say, deporting the UK’s known Muslim radicals and improved vetting of Muslim immigrants, or better enforcement of the UK’s existing laws against inciting violence.

It’s beyond question that the murderers were doing it for Allah. One can only hope that the good people of the UK will wake up.

After expressing solidarity with the Manchester bombing victims, he said:

So many young, beautiful, innocent people, living and enjoying their lives, murdered by evil losers in life. I won’t call them monsters, because they would like that term. They would think that’s a great name. I will call them, from now on, losers, because that’s what they are, they’re losers. And we’ll have more of them. But they’re losers, just remember that.

This is what I’ve spent these last few days talking about in my trip overseas. Our society can have no tolerance for this continuation of bloodshed. We cannot stand a moment longer for the slaughter of innocent people. And, in today’s attack, it was mostly innocent children. The terrorists and extremists, and those who give them aid and comfort, must be driven out from our society forever. This wicked ideology must be obliterated, and I mean completely obliterated.

Emphasis in President Trump’s delivery. I find this interesting on several levels.

First, calling them “losers” is a Trumpism. He’s spent his life focused on the issue of winning vs. losing in business, and he speaks colloquially and from his heart. Translators (into other languages) may have to footnote the expression or come up with some local idiom that would strike us as odd (if we heard it translated back).

Second, it’s an Americanism. Trump is a throwback to a time when most Americans were focused on winning vs. losing. As General Patton said in a bygone era, “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time.” This was before the Left programmed us to look down on winners and give everyone a participation trophy.

Third, it’s true. These terrorists are losers. They can’t think of anything better to do with the wonderful gift of life, than to try to ruin it for others. In addition to being evil, vicious, nihilistic, malicious, etc., they’re indescribably stupid. As such, only the stupidest of women should want to have sexual intercourse with them. They lack evolutionary fitness.

Fourth, it’s something new. I mean, I’ve called these Islamist terrorists “losers” before – but to hear the President of the United States do it, seems new. (If President Obama did it, please let me know in the comments. A search for “obama calls terrorists losers” turns up only Trump doing it.) It expresses a (rightful) depth of contempt for the terrorists that Obama probably never had. I also doubt that Obama ever talked about “completely obliterating” them.

Fifth, it’s strangely persuasive. Killing terrorists in wars, policing and effective border control all do have a place in the War on Terror. But, to really end terrorism, we will need to thrust a moral and social frame upon the terrorists that makes them seem “obviously” contemptible, or even ridiculous. So that, even to an America-hating leftist or a Muslim who may feel oppressed, being a suicide bomber no longer carries any status or moral authority or cachet. “Ugh, what a bunch of losers” is such a frame – and has the virtue, again, of being true.

Sixth and not least: Trump is saying it in the Middle East, to the faces of Palestinians (and earlier, Saudis). Kudos, Mr. President!

Seventh, the Usual Suspects hate it – you know, Whoopi Goldberg, The View, the leftie newspapers saying it makes light of things and doesn’t show enough seriousness – so you know that Trump must be on the right track.

UPDATE: Scott Adams seems to agree.

What kinds of people join the Losers [terrorists]? Mostly young males. And you know what brand young males do not want on them? Right: Losers.

If you call them monsters, they like it. If you call them ISIS or ISIL they put it on a flag and wave it around. If you call them non-Muslim, it just rolls off their backs because they have Korans and stuff. Almost any other “brand” you can imagine is either inert or beneficial to Loser recruitment.

Loser is different. No one joins the Loser movement. Try at home, with your family or friends, to concoct a more effective brand poisoning than Loser. You probably can’t.

UPDATE: Just to give credit where it’s due: in 2015, there was a push from the Obama administration to refer to the ISIS as “Daesh”. That, too, was a brand-poisoning exercise. Maybe not a great one. In Arabic, the letters are an acronym of ISIS’ name and evoke the Arabic words for “one who crushes and tramples” others, and “one who sows discord”. Perhaps our words “sociopath” or “fascist” are dynamic equivalents? Daesh is derogatory enough to make ISIS want to cut your tongue out. So, it’s a good shot. But 1) it evokes nothing in English, 2) it doesn’t get to the heart of the matter: these jihadists are losers.

UPDATE: Sean L gets into the spirit of the thing:

Perhaps we need to start using phrases that carry the same level of contempt in the Arabic world as “loser” does over here. How about “pig penises”?

Per The Telegraph, The suicide bomber who killed 22 people and injured dozens more at the Manchester Arena has been named as 22-year-old Salman Abedi.

Born in Manchester in 1994, the second youngest of four children his parents were Libyan refugees who came to the UK to escape the Gaddafi regime.

His parents were both born in Libya but appear to have emigrated to London before moving to the Fallowfield area of south Manchester where they have lived for at least ten years.

He had become radicalised recently – it is not entirely clear when – and had worshipped at a local mosque that has, in the past, been accused of fund-raising for jihadists.

(They’re still changing the article, so you might not find the exact text above.)

I’m sorry to say that lots of us saw this coming. As of last night, the media weren’t releasing his name; the delay always means that the perpetrator is a left-winger or (more likely) a Muslim.

Also, for anyone who follows the situation of Europe drowning under its Muslim immigrants, a recurring theme is that the immigrants very often don’t work (the supposed reason for bringing them in), don’t integrate, and give birth to a second generation that is MORE radical and LESS integrated than the first.

Probably more than any other country, Saudi Arabia has “hacked our democracy”. I keep meaning to write a post on their ownership share of U.S. media, and why they would be on board with a “Trump is a Russian agent!” narrative.

During the election, Trump rightly criticized Hillary for taking money from the world’s worst country for women and gays. And he had a nasty Twitter exchange with a Saudi prince.

What a difference a year makes. First, the new US-Saudi arms deal:

According to a statement just issued by the White House, Trump “has just completed largest single arms deal in US history, negotiating a package totaling more than $109.7 billion” which will boost Saudi Arabia’s defense capabilities, bolstering equipment and services in the face of extreme terrorist groups and Iran. The White House added that the deal will create defense jobs while also reaffirming America’s commitment to Saudi Arabia…

According to estimates cited by The Independent, including restocking and future commitments over the next ten years, the deal could balloon to $350 billion worth of arms…

I’m not at all sure this is good news.

• How is it different from what any pet of the Deep State would have done? (Obama, Hillary, Jeb Bush, Lindsay McCain?) I don’t know.
• Does it boost U.S. jobs as much as Trump says? I don’t know.
• I know it will help Saudi Arabia to conquer its neighbor Yemen and gain control of its oil reserves. (Not necessarily good.)
• Does it put U.S. defense technology in the hands of people who hate us? Probably.
• Does it mean that Saudi-controlled elements of U.S. media will ease their war on Trump? I don’t know.

I do know that Trump’s speech in Riyadh was epic. As Bruce Bawer puts it:

It was gag-inducing to hear him praise the “magnificent kingdom” of Saudi Arabia, “the splendor of your country,” “the grandeur of this remarkable place,” and so on…But then something happened…

…he began mixing the ethereal praise with realistic businessman-type talk about the value of international partnership…[and] underscored the fact that in order for such a partnership to work, something would have to change. And it would have to change a lot. The Islamic world, he insisted, had to turn into a place where young Muslims could grow up “innocent of hatred.”

And then he spelled out the results of that hatred, presenting first a roll call of some of the “barbaric attacks” on America – 9/11, Boston, San Bernardino, Orlando – and then a list of other places (“Europe, Africa, South America, India, Russia, China, and Australia”) where that hatred has manifested itself.

However delicately he worked his way around to it, it was nothing less than an accusation.

No, he didn’t explicitly charge Muslim leaders with funding terrorism – but he told them, in no uncertain terms, that they needed to cut off funds to terrorists…And, yes, he spoke of “Islamic” (not “Islamist” or “radical Islamic”) terror. And he made it clear he wasn’t just talking about terrorism – he was talking about Islam itself. He condemned “the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.”

Kudos, Mr. President!

Full video here (scroll down). Short excerpts here and here. Full text here. Addressing Saudi princes, telling them to their faces, “Terrorists do not worship God, they worship death…Drive them out of this Earth!”

Via HotAir, where John Sexton notes:

There’s nothing funny about the situation in Venezuela, but there is something funny about the socialists who cheered for the country and are just beginning to realize it might be an authoritarian hellhole.

Recently, hackers hit Emmanuel Macron and aides, and dumped 9 Gigabytes of emails. The emails are still being analyzed but seem genuine, so far. Could they connect Macron (a French presidential candidate and now France’s President-Elect) to tax evasion? We shall see. As Wired puts it:

users of the anonymous forum 4Chan had also purported to have published evidence of Macron’s tax evasion…it’s not clear if they’re connected to the current leak.

How do our globalist, Deep State, Controlled Media betters respond to it? Blame the Russians, of course. ABC says:

The United States watched Russians hack France’s computer networks during the election and tipped off French officials before it became public, a U.S. cyber official told the Senate on Tuesday.

Because, how DARE we peasants have real information about the wrongdoing of any Protected political figure?

I have long doubted that the Russians have much to do with these episodes. First, we know that the CIA hacks into things and leaves Russian fingerprints deliberately to mislead people. Sad to say, you can never believe anything a U.S. intelligence agency says about who hacked anything.

Second, this particular story is hokey. After eight months of terrible accusations in the U.S. media, why would the Russians again (supposedly) do that exact same thing, in the exact same way, as if wanting to be caught and blamed?

Third, who benefits from a breakout of anti-Russia hysteria, this time? Macron, of course. And the European Union, which wants him to succeed. And globalist / Deep State types generally, which want the European Union to succeed.

When a politician’s information is hacked, the key point isn’t who brings it out, but whether it is real. In the case of Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and the DNC in 2016: The emails were all real. And they gave information about her shady dealings that voters needed and deserved. Could the same be true here, of Macron?

If you disagree (or know more about this), feel free to inform us in the comments.

Ex-Patriate Gay Dude Bruce Bawer explains why Europe is so willing to subjugate itself to Islamic Supremacy.

In America we’re taught (or, at least, used to be taught) that our leaders work for us; we learn (or used to) that it’s not only our right but our duty as individuals to stand up to those leaders when we think they’re wrong – especially when we think they’re exceeding their powers and infringing on our rights. But Europeans aren’t brought up that way. Not really. Yes, there’s lip service to the idea of freedom. But when it comes right down to it, they’re raised to bow down to the state – to prioritize not themselves, not the individual, but the society, the commonweal, that abstract ideal known as “solidarity.”

So it is that even in a secret ballot, it takes European voters a remarkable amount of nerve to resist the thunderous chorus of voices from above urging them to vote against their own interests; it feels like nothing less than an act of treason to heed the meek little voices in their own heads begging them to do the opposite – to do what’s actually best for themselves and their loved ones. They’ve been psychologically manipulated to the point where they truly believe, on some level, at least in some Orwellian doublethink kind of way, that acting in clear defense of their own existence, their own culture, their own values, and their own posterity, is an act of ugly prejudice.

There’s a distressingly strong strain of “subjugate yourself to the state as long as its being run by the Democrats” in the United States as well. Heck, you even have groups like Antifa violently demanding *more* subjugation to the state.

And let’s be blunt. The emigrants who left Europe for America in the 19th and early 20th Century were the ones with courage and balls. Leaving behind one’s country to take a chance in a foreign land is an act of ballsiness. (Sadly, immigrants in the 21st Century just want to cash in on America’s generous welfare benefits.)

Naturally, the Europeans who stayed behind were more likely to be wimps, cowards, and (things Trump would grab).  And two world wars probably killed off the European genes for bravery. Let’s face it, a lot of Frenchmen are only around today because their grandmothers learned the German words for “Good evening, handsome soldier.”

Plus ca change…

Congratulations to Angela Merkel (of Germany) and/or Brigitte Macron, one or both of whom is effectively France’s new President.

As expected, Emmanuel Macron has defeated Marine Le Pen in France’s election and will be the nominal occupant of Élysée Palace, on behalf of the women above.

The numbers are not final. Estimates put Macron’s number in the 62-65 area, meaning that Le Pen will be in the 38-35 area. By U.S. standards that is a landslide; but Le Pen got much farther than she has ever gotten before, and will remain a force in French politics.

UPDATE: Per Ace, the final split is about 49% Macron, 26% Le Pen, 25% blank (Abstain). Which is 65-35 on the two-party vote.

Hat tip to Marine Le Pen for the joke here. (more…)

This seems like an odd way to fight “sexual harassment” but…. whatevs.

Subway bosses in Mexico City have fitted plastic penises onto seats in a bizarre campaign to raise awareness of sexual assault.

The smooth shape of some plastic seats on the billion-passenger network has been replaced with the sculpted shape of a male body.

The upper half of the seat is fitted with a chest, nipples and a belly – while the lower half is given legs, and a prominent, flaccid penis.

The seats are marked “exclusively for men”.

Text placed on the floor next to the modified seats makes the point that sitting there is uncomfortable – but not as uncomfortable as getting sexually assaulted.

I think public employees in most countries of the world are very stupid people.

A Canuckistanian politician wants three questions asked as part of the vetting process for admitting migrants into America’s Hat.

“Are men and woman equal, and entitled to equal protection under the law?

Is it ever OK to coerce or use violence against an individual or a group who disagrees with your views?

Do you recognize that to have a good life in Canada you will need to work hard to provide for yourself and your family, and that you can’t expect to have things you want given to you?

She’s being attacked as “Islamophobic.”

1. Trump makes statement.

2. Media attack statement as outrageously false.
3. Trump statement proves accurate.

Rinse and Repeat.

Here is another example.

Trump was also right about the voter fraud thing, but you knew that already.

The Government of Ukraine overtly attempted to interfere in the 2016 election… by helping Hillary.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The people who were untroubled by the tens of millions in bribes the Clinton Foundation received from the Saudis, Qataris, and other Mohammedan countries probably will not be troubled by this either.

– Politico

My original question was “Why does Barack Obama hate Israel.” This in the context of the Obama regime crafting and allowing to pass a UN resolution condemning Israel for building apartments (to the left, building apartments is an obstacle to peace, firing missiles at kindergartens {like the Palestinians do} is not). It was followed up by John Kerry’s anti-Israel speech today. Clearly, the president has a bitter animus toward Israel, and I wondered whether it was because of his anti-Westernism, his sympathy for Mohammedans, or simply his deep and personal hatred of Benjamin Netanyahu. But Ben Shapiro went ahead and answered the question “Why does Obama Hate Israel” and he attributes it to Obama’s lifelong indoctrination in anti-Western, anti-Judeo-Christian values… beginning at the feet of Frank Marshall Davis and continuing through Bill Ayers and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama has always surrounded himself with haters of America and the West, and Israel is a symbol of the West and therefore he hates Israel and seeks to facilitate its destruction.

However, hatred of Israel is not just Obama, it is a feature of the Modern Left. From the BDS movements urging universities to “Boycott, Divest, and Sanction” Israel for the crime of being a liberal democracy surrounded by Islamic tyranny, through the insane “Queers for Palestine” gay leftists siding with people who would throw them from the roofs of buildings, right up through the Obama State Department, the American Left has become a hotbed of anti-semitism. Western leftists side with the Mohammedan tyrants… the same Mohammedan tyrants who deny women any human rights and brutally torture and kill gay people… at the same time they will destroy Christians for simply refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The only thing that explains this is a deranged, pathological hatred for Western Civilization and Christianity.

The other reason… and Shapiro sort of touches on this… is that in the United States, the left hates Israel because support for Israel is identified with the Christian Right. The left will therefore hate and despise Israel of pure spite. The left just cannot allow themselves to agree with the Christian Right on anything. To do so would cause a loss of social and tribal status. Conversely, the more openly one hates Israel, the more one is demonstrating how different they are from the Christian Right. In a sense, hatred of Israel is a twisted leftist form of virtue signaling.

Am I wrong?

While America prepares to elect a corrupt, lawless criminal for president, to continue the course of Rotten Government we’ve suffered under for decades, Iceland may be about to choose a different path.

Iceland’s Pirate Party — an amalgamation of anarchists, libertarians, and hackers, who want to ban digital surveillance — is predicted to win the country’s national elections this Saturday.

This collection of free-thinkers have upturned the traditional Western political paradigm and hopes to use online public polls to shape governmental policy and end all Internet spying.

Although the Pirate Party formed just four years ago, its popularity has skyrocketed — most likely for unconventional tactics aligning loosely with libertarianism — the promotion of privacy rights and personal freedoms, and simultaneous shrinking of Big Government.

Sounds good to me.

Do you think Iceland is going to turn into Somalia? Because according to our leftist friends, the only alternative to massive, all-powerful, intrusive, Government is totally anarchy with no police, roads, or fire protection. There simply is no other possible system of Government.

I had already decided there would be an Icelandic character in my NaNoWriMo novel. Glad I made that call.

Doctors Without Borders not only wouldn’t lift a finger to help free American hostage Kayla Mueller who was eventually murdered by ISIS, they also refused to pass on information about her to her family.

Even though she was kidnapped by ISIS from a Doctors Without Borders vehicle, and had helped a friend install equipment at a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Syria, the prestigious humanitarian group refused to help negotiate for the freedom of American hostage Kayla Mueller, her parents tell ABC News.

Marsha and Carl Mueller of Prescott, Arizona, said the group refused to speak with them for months and then withheld critical information provided by freed Doctors Without Borders hostages — information that directly concerned their daughter and was needed in order to begin negotiations for her release.

Two contrasting items today, in the Establishment press.

In Foreign Policy magazine, James Traub says “It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses”. Yes, that is the title of his article.

It’s a trashy piece, packed with elitist cliches and the occasional jaw-dropper (for example, when he refers to Washington’s infamous “K Street” lobbyists with approval). Yet it’s a tortured attempt to begin to face reality:

The issue, at bottom, is globalization. Brexit, Trump, the National Front, and so on show that political elites have misjudged the depth of the anger at global forces…

Actually no, Mr. Traub. Globalization, in itself, is not the problem. -Dictatorial- globalization wherein the political elites wrongly seek to enslave people, is the problem. But kudos to you, for beginning to tell the said elites that maybe there could be some sort of systemic problem.

A good contrast: In The New York Times, Marine Le Pen says “After Brexit, the People’s Spring Is Inevitable”.

British voters understood that… only one question, at once simple and fundamental, was being asked: Do we want an undemocratic authority ruling our lives, or would we rather regain control over our destiny?
[…]
More and more, the destiny of the European Union resembles the destiny of the Soviet Union, which died from its own contradictions.

There’s much more. As the saying goes, “Read the whole thing.”

UPDATE: Over at The Guardian, it’s even worse than the James Traub piece above. David Van Reybrouck’s article is titled “Why Elections Are Bad For Democracy” (yes, for real).

Starting from a blind premise that Brexit is obviously awful, he says “Voting is the problem” and suggests, in all seriousness, that citizen referenda should be replaced by focus groups (called “sortition” to make it sound nice and historical) which will be guided by the elite’s approved experts. (Via ZH.)