Author Archive: Ed Driscoll

GREAT MOMENTS IN AI HALLUCINATIONS: UK police used fake evidence to justify ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, chief admits.

The UK’s West Midlands Police used fictitious evidence to justify its advice to ban Israeli fans of the Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer team from attending a match in Birmingham last month, the force’s chief admitted to a parliamentary committee Monday, as MPs grilled police brass on the basis of their controversial decision.

The Aston Villa soccer club announced in October that no Maccabi fans would be allowed at a November match following a police assessment that classified the event as “high risk” and suggested banning Israeli fans from the stadium.

In the report presented to the club that suggested banning Israeli fans, police presented information about a 2023 match between Maccabi and West Ham, which the report said was the Israeli club’s “last appearance on UK soil to date.”

“The most recent match Maccabi played in the UK was against West Ham in the Europa Conference League on Nov 9, 2023,” the report read.

However, no such match was played, and Maccabi has never faced off against the East London club.

Well, it did in the Central Scrutinizer’s digital mind:

MARK STEYN: Minneapolis, Twinned with Rotherham.

For the last thirteen months, the United States has demonstrated the central aspect of the thesis of America Alone – that in critical aspects it remains different from the more obviously suicidal parts of the west. The real question is whether it is sufficiently different to affect the ultimate outcome. As I have said, absent severe course-correction, we are in the last fifteen years of anything remotely recognisable as the western world. No country other than Somalia – or the breakaway Somaliland – needs a single Somali other than Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

And yet there is the Hennepin County Attorney loosing them on Minneapolis in order that its maidenhood should grow accustomed to the progressivism of gang-rape.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE:

OLD AND BUSTED: Is Paris Burning?

The New Hotness? When Isn’t Paris Burning? Paris is a city afraid.

This year what was once the [New Year’s Eve] celebration has been reduced to a simulation. Paris must now film a celebration in advance because it cannot trust itself to manage a real one. The city that staged the Olympics cannot handle a national holiday. Paris, a capital that used to defy threats, can no longer manage its crowds.

In recent years [the Champs Élysées] has become the predictable destination for trouble. Large groups stream in from the suburbs on major nights and the pattern repeats itself. Burning scooters. Smash and grab attacks on luxury shops. Running fights with police. Dozens of arrests. Last year there were more than two hundred in Paris alone. Television networks keep a running tally of the number of cars torched across the country. During the Champions League celebrations this summer there were hundreds.

The French state understands all of this. The problem has only gotten worse with the transport reform which cuts the price of public transport for residents of the suburbs while raising them for travel within central Paris itself. Presented as ‘social justice’, it makes it cheaper than ever for huge numbers to surge into the centre from the suburbs on major nights. Parisians now pay more to move around central Paris, while the journey in from the suburbs has never been more affordable. The consequences are obvious. The city and the police are no longer willing to face them.

France spent billions on Olympic security and deployed an army of police officers. The fireworks will still take place at midnight, but they will rise over a boulevard the authorities no longer consider safe for real celebration. The city knows where the pressure lies. It knows who floods into the avenue on nights like these. It knows how quickly things can turn.

Massive understatement alert: “France’s open-door policies have had consequences.”

WHEN OBJECTIVITY LOOKS LIKE A SHIFT RIGHT TO LEGACY VOICES:

Connie Chung spoke in a recent interview about what she views as a troubling move inside CBS.

Her comments sounded less like a warning about journalism and more like proof of a mindset that decades of a system that convinced itself it had no bias at all have shaped.

Chung — on Thursday’s episode of “Pablo Torre Finds Out” — described CBS as a “whole different organization” from the time she worked there before calling out Shari Redstone, who sold her majority stake in parent company Paramount Global to David Ellison’s Skydance Media in a $8.4 billion deal over the summer.

“Their greed has caused the venerable CBS to actually disassemble, to crash into crumbles,” said Chung, the second woman ever to anchor a major U.S. nightly news program.

She proceeded to chuckle before name-dropping Bari Weiss, the conservative journalist who recently became CBS News’ new editor-in-chief.

“I don’t know what to call Bari Weiss, I just don’t know,” she said.

Her reaction tells a larger story; when a newsroom leans left for generations, any push toward balance feels like a conservative wind. The ground under that newsroom never moved; the center, voters, and America moved.

* * * * * * * * *

During the Cronkite years, executives never admitted any bias — to them, old Walter’s declaration that Vietnam was lost was objective. Yet entire generations of academics, analysts, and former producers noted how often CBS mirrored Democratic Party priorities. Major stories received heavy coverage when they helped one side, but when they harmed one side, they received softer coverage.

These patterns created a worldview that felt safe to the people inside the building, one with limits, by rewarding the same political group and treating dissent as unserious.

Chung’s comments reflect that comfort; she doesn’t want a CBS that welcomes voices she never saw as credible, or one that moves to the center. She needs the CBS she knew.

Chung’s reluctance to accurately define Weiss, despite Weiss being remarkably open over the years about her biases, is classic example of DNC-MSM myopia. We can see it in reverse, here: MS NOW Host Stephanie Ruhle Melts Down After Charlamagne Tha God and Andrew Schulz Point Out Her Network’s Left-Wing Bias.

During the New York Times’ 2025 Dealbook Summit roundtable event, Stephanie Ruhle, host of MS NOW’s The 11th Hour With Stephanie Ruhle, flipped out on Charlamagne the God after he said “when I turn on MSNBC [MS NOW] I know I’m going to get a left angle.” Ruhle, clearly bothered, interrupted her co-panelist and said “that’s an assumption.”

“That only continues that narrative, you know what you’re going to get here, you know what you’re going to get there,” Ruhle continued pushing back, “I challenge that. You don’t.”

“Oh that’s not true,” Charlamagne responded. “I know exactly what I’m going to get when I turn on Fox News. I know exactly what angles they’re going to come with. If I turn on MSNBC I know I’m getting a left angle.”

Comedian Andrew Schulz chimed in, asking Ruhle “are you shocked when you turned on MSNBC? Are you like ‘OH MY GOD! I didn’t see this take coming?’”

“Then I invite you to watch my show any night of the week,” Ruhle responded.

“We watch your show,” Schulz said shrugging his shoulders.

Why bother feign objectivity when you’re on the air at MSNBC (or as Ed Morrissey recently described it, M-SNOW)? The network has openly prided itself as being the leftist alternative to Fox News. Why not openly lean into your ideology? Particularly since Charlamagne and Schulz forced Ruhle to acknowledge that media designed to entertain and inform other worldviews actually exists.

BASED FRANKLIN:

PREY MORALITY:

DAN HANNAN: Not all immigrants are equal.

Minnesota may be the single largest source of funds for the Somali terrorist organization al Shabaab. An investigation by Ryan Thorpe and Christopher F. Rufo of the Manhattan Institute found that schemes established in the state to provide healthcare, children’s services, and food distribution have been subjected to such gargantuan fraud that Minnesotan taxpayers may, in effect, be simultaneously funding several sides in Somalia’s civil war.

This is a reminder that not all cultures are equal. Minnesota‘s political structures were designed for Scandinavians, who are famously industrious, with a high level of social trust that has allowed them to sustain ambitious welfare programs with little abuse.

In the New World, as in the Old, they designed institutions that reflected their character. Minnesota’s Housing Stabilization Services program, which was supposed to provide housing for seniors, disabled people, and drug addicts, is a good example. With its client groups in mind, it was deliberately built to have “low barriers to entry” and “minimal requirements for reimbursement.”

It turns out that Somalis do not respond to such schemes in the way that Swedes do. Instead of simply over-claiming, as your unambitious American fraudster might, locals set up bogus companies to make fictitious claims running into hundreds of millions of dollars. Some of the money went on cars and holidays, but a chunk found its way to al Qaeda-aligned Islamists in Somalia, where remittances from overseas amount to a larger sum than the state budget.

As Kevin Williamson once wrote of Bernie Sanders, “Sanders is particularly taken with the case of Finland, which he holds up as a model of what a long-term commitment to democratic socialism can produce…A critic once asked Milton Friedman what he thought about the fact that Sweden has basically no poverty, and Friedman answered: We don’t have many poor Swedes in America, either.”

But perhaps we do have some in power who failed to project into the future where mass importation might lead:

SHAKEDOWN STREET:

OLD AND BUSTED: “To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before.”

The New Hotness? To Boldly Go Where Beverly Hills 90210 Has Gone Before:

Needless to say, the cringe is extremely strong in this one. As the Critical Drinker notes in the video below:

This feels like the kind of show that their target audience would have on a second screen while they flick through social media on their phone.

So every so often they can look up and see some really hot, young, muscly, good-looking characters having relationship stuff going on—vaguely connected to the Star Trek universe—and then they can look back at their phone again. That’s honestly what this seems to have been designed for.

And, wow. As you say, Star Trek used to be a show of real intelligence and ideas, something that would expand your view of the world and what was possible. And this is what it is now? Wow.

Gene Roddenberry must be rolling over in his grave. The first show he produced was The Lieutenant, starring Gary Lockwood, who would appear as a guest star in the second Star Trek pilot, before hopping on a plane to London to become the co-star of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. The Lieutenant depicted Lockwood’s character as being, as Wikipedia notes, the young idealistic “recent graduate of the United States Naval Academy who is assigned his first command, that of a rifle platoon,” at Camp Pendleton in southern California. Roddenberry, a former L.A. cop and WWII bomber pilot, kept the military theme going in the original Star Trek, of course. Even after Roddenberry’s death, Star Trek: The Next Generation could do an episode set in Starfleet Academy that depicted a far more disciplined and serious group of students studying to join a futuristic military origination than the weird L.A. high school class in space depicted in the new trailer.

Oh, and just to put the button on the new series: Stephen Colbert Joins Cast of Star Trek: Starfleet Academy, Role Revealed at New York Comic Con.

James Lileks once wrote that whenever Kirk mentioned “we were at the Academy together” about that week’s guest star, it was Trek’s version of “I have a bad feeling about this.” I’ve got a very, very bad feeling about Starfleet Academy. 

UPDATE:

WE NEED A COMPLETE AND TOTAL SHUTDOWN OF SACRAMENTO UNTIL WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON THERE: Gavin Newsom’s Twisted ‘Crotch Clench’ Sparks Concern, Baffles Experts.

There’s something wrong with Gavin Newsom. Americans recoiled in horror, then squinted in fascination at the images of Newsom’s appearance at the New York Times Dealbook Summit. There he was, the greaseball California governor, sitting in a chair with his legs crossed impossibly tight, protruding akimbo at improbable angles like a human swastika, a wanton display of “testicle-crushing” contortion. It was the opposite of manspreading, the inverse of kink-splaying, yet Newsom’s gnarled pose, his tangled appendages—like a steel-beamed hedgehog standing guard at Omaha Beach—still managed to intrude upon the public space in a way that many found unsettling.

Still though, it could always be worse: Gavin Newsom bites back with bonkers photo after being roasted for bizarre sitting position.

California Governor Gavin Newsom bit back at detractors for rumbling about his awkward sitting position.

Newsom, 58, was mercilessly trolled online earlier this week after critics took issue with his cross-legged position while he spoke at The New York Times‘ DealBook Summit.

His press office was quick to bite back, releasing an AI-generated image of the Democrat sitting his legs to in the air and his ankles crossed by his face. His hands were raised to his middle and pressed flatly into each other.

‘Democracy requires flexibility,’ his office wrote on X Friday.

Newsom, himself, reposted the image, writing: ‘WOW!’

Conquest’s Third Law of Politics states, “The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.” Particularly those who staff its social media departments.

HUGH HEWITT INTERVIEWS POWER LINE’S SCOTT JOHNSON: The first reporter on the Minnesota fraud scandal on how this iceberg of a story is being revealed.

FINALLY: It’s Official: The Original Theatrical Cut of Star Wars Is Coming Back to Theaters.

A day Star Wars fans never thought would happen is finally happening. Lucasfilm and Disney are rereleasing the original version of Star Wars in theaters for its 50th anniversary. It’ll happen on February 17, 2027, and io9 has confirmed with Lucasfilm that it is, in fact, the original theatrical cut of the movie.

Earlier this year, the studio announced it would be bringing Star Wars, later titled Star Wars: A New Hope, back to theaters to celebrate its massive anniversary, but there was the big question of what version? Would it be the Special Edition that had become the standard over the past 30 years? The version with Greedo shooting first, Jabba the Hutt, and rings around the Death Star?

Now, we know that the answer is “No.” This will be “a newly restored version of the classic Star Wars (1977) theatrical release” that will play in theaters for a limited time. And, according to other reports, it’ll even be released in IMAX, though Lucasfilm has yet to confirm that.

Back in 1997, when George Lucas remastered and tinkered with the original trilogy with the Special Editions, those became the only versions that Lucasfilm would release. That meant in theaters, on streaming, on DVD, all that stuff. As a result, copies of the original film—with Han shooting first, no Jabba, etc.—became rather rare. Last year, though, Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy attended a screening of one of those prints, giving the event an official seal of approval. And now we know why.

As John Nolte wrote last year, “Until Star Wars is fun, masculine, cool, and sexy again (instead of prim, proper, woke, and preachy), the phenom is over. And it might be over regardless, because Kathleen Kennedy’s obsession with homosexuality and gender politics has drained the greatest franchise in Hollywood history of all its goodwill.”

Fans of the original Star Wars have been begging Disney to release the film in its original version ever since they acquired LucasFilm in 2012. Having run the franchise deeply into ground, this seems like its last gasp, no matter how much slop is yet to be released under the brand name.

STEVEN PINKER IN THE AIRSTRIP ONE LONDON TIMES: 1984 revisited: George Orwell would be relieved at how we’ve done.

When I first read Nineteen Eighty-Four in 1967 at the age of 13, I was intrigued by its implied prophecy. This futuristic novel specified the year in which it was set in its title, a year I would live to see. What would life be like in 1984? And how would the novel be received once the year had elapsed, set in a future that then would be past?

We are now more than 40 years past the time in which the book was set and almost 80 years after it was written. This raises an irresistible question: how much is the world of 2025 like the world of 1984 as imagined in 1948?

Of course, Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four not as a prophecy but as an extrapolation and a warning. As he explained: “I do not believe that the kind of society I describe necessarily will arrive. But I believe, allowing, of course, for the fact that the book is a satire, that something resembling it could arrive.”

Did it arrive? It’s instructive to assess Orwell as a prophet. For one thing, it can be a reminder of the limits of prophecy. Even the predictions of the world’s most accurate forecasters, when tested against prespecified dates and outcomes they can’t weasel out of, fall to chance levels about five years out. It would be unreasonable to expect Orwell to do much better.

Comparing 1948 with 1984 and 2025 is also a way to understand the history we’re living through beyond the short time horizon of journalism. If the news came out once every 50 years instead of every day, it surely wouldn’t cover celebrity gossip and politicians’ gaffes but rather sweeping developments we might be oblivious to as they gradually unfold. Looking back at the future is a way to see our era in historical perspective.

Given that the British police routine arrest people for posing with a shotgun in Florida, writing anti-immigration tweets, confiscating their kid’s iPad, insulting their school board on WhatsApp, or calling someone a “faggot” in a text message, while looking the other way at massive grooming scandals, I think Orwell would have some serious questions about the state of England in 2025. But there’s no doubt that economically, and especially technologically, it’s moved far beyond the immediate postwar scarcity in which Orwell wrote his novel. Which was why, in 2007’s Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg concluded:

The twentieth century gave us two visions of a dystopian future, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984. For many years it was assumed that 1984 was the more prophetic tale. But no more. The totalitarianism of 1984 was a product of the age of Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini, the dictators of a continent with a grand tradition of political and religious absolutism. Brave New World was a dystopia based on an American future, where Henry Ford is remembered as a messiah (it’s set in the year “632 A.F.,” after Ford) and the cult of youth that Huxley so despised defines society. Everything is easy under the World State. Everyone is happy. Indeed, the great dilemma for the reader of Brave New World is to answer the question, what’s wrong with it?

There’s a second important difference between the two dystopias: 1984 is a masculine vision of totalitarianism. Or rather, it is a vision of a masculine totalitarianism. Huxley’s totalitarianism isn’t a “boot stamping on a human face—for ever,” as described in 1984. It’s one of smiling, happy, bioengineered people chewing hormonal gum and blithely doing what they’re told. Democracy is a forgotten fad because things are so much easier when the state makes all your decisions. In short, Huxley’s totalitarianism is essentially feminine. Orwell’s was a daddy-dystopia, where the state is abusive and bullying, maintaining its authority through a permanent climate of war and the manufacture of convenient enemies. Huxley’s is a maternal misery, where man is smothered with care, not cruelty. But for all our talk these days about manliness, individualism, and even the “nanny state,” we still don’t have the vocabulary to fight off nice totalitarianism, liberal fascism.

In 2020, we could have used it.

A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION MASQUERADING AS A POLITICAL PARTY:

(Classical reference in headline.)

JULIE BURCHILL: Eurovision’s bum-note boycott.

The latest “casualty” of the culture wars — though to call it that is to lend it more dignity than it deserves; perhaps we should describe it as the brain-dead brouhaha of the Trash Telly Top Trumps — is the Eurovision Song Contest, from which a growing number of countries are withdrawing their “artistes”. (Though anyone who witnessed last year’s most vocal opponent of Israel, one “Bambi Thug”, might conclude that using the word “artiste” to describe her is about as accurate as calling the contents of a nappy an “artefact”.) The delegations of the unfriendly nations demanded a secret vote on Israel’s participation — for the inevitable reasons — which has sensibly been rejected, indicating that the Eurovision bigwigs are pleasingly determined to dig their heels in, perhaps in the light of how popular the Israeli entry proved with the public last year; ranked joint 14th by the national juries, but dominating the leaderboard due to the results of the online and phone votes. Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK were among the countries whose viewers awarded Israel the maximum 12 points. Once again, the voice of the people (don’t forget the mocked contest attracts a larger European television audience than anything apart from big sports matches) and the voice of the captured Establishment couldn’t have been more at odds.

Not content with creating the circumstances which led to a young woman, Eden Golan, being booed while singing a song about the Hamas pogrom, many of last year’s persecutors are back for a second go. Yuval Raphael, who will represent Israel next year, was actually a survivor of the 2023 attack, so one can imagine the usual self-righteous sadists having an especially fun time barracking her. So far, Spain, Ireland, Slovenia and the Netherlands have boycotted the contest; only Spain is one of the Eurovision’s Big Five countries along with France, Germany, Italy and the UK, so I can’t imagine the European Broadcasting Union’s (EBU) General Assembly getting their scanties in a bunch quite yet.

In the case of Spain and Ireland, though, it’s tempting to shrug, albeit sorrowfully. What did we expect? Spain, the home of the Inquisition, repeated Jewish expulsion and forced conversion, appears to be reverting to type. The same could be said of Ireland, which has taken to anti-Israel activity with a relish that won’t surprise anyone who remembers that Eamon de Valera’s Eire was “neutral” in the war between the Allies and the Axis.

The Netherlands appear to be reverting to type as well:

TRUNALIMUNUMAPRZURE! Joe Biden Yells At Clouds, Shouts At LGBT Audience To Fight For Constitution … Or Something.

Former President Joe Biden yelled at the audience during a Friday speech at the International LGBTQ+ Leaders Conference, telling attendees to “fight” for the Constitution.

Biden, who was stricken with prostate cancer, was at the conference to receive an award from the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute. The former president recounted during his speech how his father told him as a child to “get up” when people mocked him.

“When I was growing up, whenever something bad happened, I used to be a stutter, and people made a lot of fun of you, and a lot of other things,” Biden said. “My dad would look at me and say, ‘Joey, just get up. Get up, Joey! Get up!’ Well, folks, that’s my message to all of us today. To all who love our country. To all!”

“All of us who are dismayed by the present state of the union. This is no time to give up. It’s time to get up! Get up and fight back! Get up!” he screamed. “Continue to fight! And what’s the fight all about!? … It’s about protecting the Constitution! It’s about protecting the Constitution!”

Of the United States of the Amerigotta!!!!!!