Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Kaplan in deep s**t as film emerges of him equating Israelis to the Nazis

April 17, 2016

UPDATE 2: Well, he resigned.

But the Green Party have not distanced themselves from him. He remains in parliament and in the Party. Their “principles” are fundamentally compromised.

The Prime Minister reacted very late and not very decisively. He too refrained from condemning Kaplan’s thoughtless language and his hobnobbing with extremists.


 

UPDATE to previous post on Green Party and antisemitism:

Today Sunday 17th April, SvD reported that Kaplan has been caught on film from 2009 on Somali Star TV where he equates the Nazi treatment of Jews in the 1930s to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

His position is untenable and he will have to go.

He does not have any good options left.

  1. He can resign as Minister and from parliament and resign from the Green party — this is the best outcome for the Greens who will still be tarred by the anti-semitism brush.
  2. He can resign as Minister and remain in Parliament as a Green representative – which will only prove the Green indecisiveness and their unsuitability for government.
  3. He can be sacked by Stefan Löfven which will win Löfven some brownie points.

M Kaplan

The critical thing is that both the Greens and the Social Democrats need to distance themselves – fast – from Kaplan. The longer the Greens remain supporting him the greater the hit they will take. The longer Löfven does not speak out publicly against Kaplan the more indecisive and weak he will appear. The Greens and the Social Democrats have to wake up to the fact that the damage has already been done. Now it is how good they are at damage control which is the question.

But Mehmet Kaplan is toast.

Good riddance (one, because he is an apologist for islamist extremism; two, because he is apparently incompetent: three, because he is a token of multiculturalism with the Greens; and four, because he is a Green).


 

 

 

Is Sweden’s Green party fundamentally anti-semitic?

April 16, 2016

The Green Party’s Mehmet Kaplan who is the housing minister in the Swedish coalition government is currently in hot water after photographs were released showing him hobnobbing with Turkish, far right, neo-fascist extremists. He is seen at the same table as Barbaros Leylani (“death to the Armenian dogs”) and president of the Swedish branch of the neo-fascist Grey Wolves Ilhan Senturk.

This is not the first time Kaplan has been linked to extremist, islamic and anti-semitic organisations. As housing minister he is seen as incompetent and has also surrounded himself with an unprofessional personal staff. He is still in government as part of the price that Prime Minister Stefan Löfven and the Social Democrats have to pay for keeping their coalition going with the Greens.

(The Green Party leader is environment minister. She along with the culture and education ministers, who are also from the Greens, have not distinguished themselves particularly. But they cannot be accused of being extremist or anti-semitic – only of being incompetent and desperate to stay in government).

Kaplan however has been linked to islamic militants for some time.

  1. In 2014, Turkish-origin former Social Democrat member of parliament Nalin Pekgul accused Mr. Kaplan of being an “Islamist” with a “hidden agenda”. Writing a scathing editorial in a Swedish newspaper, the politician said that with Kaplan’s appointment to the ministry the government had “sent a clear signal to Sweden’s Muslims that the Islamists now have the support of the Swedish establishment”.
  2. Kaplan was also unthinking enough to equate Swedes joining IS with Finns fighting against Russians during WW2. Also a remarkable display of ignorance of history and an apologist remark – in any interpretation – for the IS.
  3. Mehmet Kaplan was arrested in 2010 by Israeli forces after participating in the Mavi Marmara flotilla, which was headed to the Gaza Strip. The Turkish-born MP was later deported from Israel over his involvement.
  4. During Operation Protective Edge in Gaza, Kaplan called for the “liberation of Jerusalem” at a pro-Palestinian rally.
  5. When the Mohammed cartoons were published in Denmark, he thought it was deplorable and not applicable as an expression of freedom of speech.
  6. Kaplan hosted a conference in the Swedish parliament where he invited Yvonne Ridley, a member of the English Respect Party and a rabid anti-semite. He also invited hate preacher Riyadh ul Haq.

The Green Party leader Åsa Romson is also – like Jeremy Corbyn’s extreme labour supporters – so enamoured of the Palestinian cause that she often strays into anti-semitic territory.

Green party “co-spokesperson” (a euphemism for “leader”) Åsa Romson has once again demonstrated that the greens have great difficulty in making the transition from being demonstrators on the streets to actually being in government. Åsa Romson is even the Deputy Prime Minister. She has been silly enough to first compare the Mediterranean to Auschwitz and then to refer to the Roma as “zigenare” which means gypsy and as a term has officially been declared to be “offensive”.

Anti-semitism crops up regularly among local Green politicians. Birgitta Hansen of the Stockholm Greens has said the Israelis “behave like the Nazis – only worse”. Another local Green politician Jerker Nordlund has called Israel “mentally sick” and called for a global war against Israel.

The Greens claim that they have no more than a “usual” number of anti-semites among their members. But I note that 17 of 21 local Green parties have expressed their support for Kaplan. They try to excuse themselves by saying they are pro-Palestine and anti-Israel and not anti-semitic, but methinks they do protest too much.

Green Parties around the world have become a safe haven for former communists and far-left extremists. And among the far left (as with the far right) there is very hard core of fascists and anti-semites. Unfortunately the sanctimonious, self-righteous sections of the Greens are often too naive – or too stupid – to realise when they have been hijacked. The Green Party in Sweden contains a hard core of anti-semites. In Kaplan they also seem to have an apologist for islamic extremism and a not particularly good minister.


 

US media overwhelmingly against Trump, but yet …..

March 21, 2016

There is something strange in the mood abroad among the US electorate and it is something that the US media either do not understand or are deliberately ignoring.

That the liberal media oppose Trump is only to be expected. The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the LA Times, Politico and their ilk cannot be expected to support any GOP candidate at the best of times. But against Trump they are positively vitriolic. The “hard left” media (Slate, Salon, Huffington Post etc) are apoplectic when it comes to Trump. They have compared him to Hitler, Mussolini and even Kim Jung-Un. But now even the right of centre media (Wall Street Journal, Fox News….) are lambasting him. Even the hard right media (Breitbart, Drudge, Washington Times….) will not endorse Trump but just stay “neutral”.

And yet Trump’s numbers continue to rise. It is apparent that the media are failing to capture the mood in the country. I am sticking to my theory that Trump has activated an anti-establishment sentiment where all the mainstream media are considered “establishment”. And this gives the peculiar situation where any attack by an establishment figure only sustains the anti-establishment sentiment that Trump has tapped into.

Observing this from across the Atlantic has proven to be even more fascinating than my wildest expectations. But the anti-establishment sentiment is also abroad in Europe. It shows up in the BREXIT campaign and in the rise of parties which challenge the “politically correct” view. It is not just anti-immigration, far-right parties which are prospering but any party which occupies the “anti-establishment” space. That can be seen in Denmark and Norway and Sweden where mainstream centre-right parties are taking away some support from the far-right  by adopting somewhat “politically incorrect” positions.

I suspect that this is not just restricted to the US and Europe. I see in India and Africa the beginnings of something similar. It is a mood which has global dimensions and is, I think, something primal. A reaction perhaps to 3 decades of sanctimonious “political correctness” which has – or is perceived to have:

  • excused criminality and bad behaviour on genetic or social grounds
  • downgraded the victims of crime or bad behaviour
  • protected criminals and “bad people” in the name of human rights,
  • downgraded “family values”
  • promoted the bureaucracy against the individual
  • downgraded the individual
  • relaxed moral values
  • promoted deviation and deviants
  • demonised progress and economic growth
  • …….

Maybe I am reading too much into this, but the fact remains that the US media are missing something quite fundamental. i expect that to defeat Trump it needs someone to take his ground away from him – not just attack the ground he stands on. And that requires someone who is perceived to be just as “anti-establishment”. And there is no one on the GOP side who can do that and only Bernie Sanders among the Democrats comes close.

From the Reuters tracking poll:

Reuters tracking 18032016


 

Obama opposition to Trump could increase the anti-establishment wave in his favour

March 17, 2016

My theory is that Trump has activated and is riding an anti-establishment wave. Whenever an establishment figure (politician or main stream media) comes out against Trump, it increases the anti-establishment support for him. Therefore – my theory says – the only way to defeat Trump is by taking his ground away from him, not by attacking him from an establishment position. So Sanders, in my opinion, would have had a better chance against Trump. Hillary Clinton is the epitome of establishment.

Obama image: Sean Gallup-Getty

Obama image: Sean Gallup-Getty

Now it is reported that Obama and his advisors are strategizing against Trump and will likely come out, not just in favour of Clinton, but aggressively against Trump. Firstly there can hardly be a more establishment figure than the POTUS. Secondly, Obama and strategy don’t really go together. He will likely over-analyse the problem and try to make rational arguments against Trump. Which would be futile. It will be far too easy for Trump to counter-attack after Obama’s strategic and tactical fiascos in Syria against Putin. That added to Hillary Clinton’s own Benghazi fiasco will just be playing in to Trump’s narrative.

Washington Post: ….. President Obama is plunging into the campaign fray, not only to help Democrats retain the White House but in defense of his own legacy in a political climate dominated by Trump. ………

….. Obama and his top aides have been strategizing for weeks about how they can reprise his successful 2008 and 2012 approaches to help elect a Democrat to replace him. And out of concern that a Republican president in 2017 — either Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) — would weaken or reverse some of his landmark policies, Obama and his surrogates have started making the case that it is essential for the GOP to be defeated in November.

Assuming it becomes a Clinton / Trump election, Clinton would be far better off with Obama being silent. She does not need his support to become a visible confirmation that she is the establishment candidate. Obama being openly and vocally against Trump will only cement the anti-establishment wave behind Trump. It could even convert the wave into a tsunami.


 

The Obama is the cabbage to Putin as the King .. and pigs indeed have wings

March 17, 2016

Lewis Carroll

The Walrus and the Carpenter
    Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
    Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
    And waited in a row.

`The time has come,’ the Walrus said,
    `To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax —
    Of cabbages — and kings —
And why the sea is boiling hot —
    And whether pigs have wings.’

Putin started his Syrian intervention on 29th September, 2015, much to to the astonishment of the Obama and his overpaid, idiot advisors. “It won’t work” cried the Obama. “An attempt by Russia and Iran to prop up Assad and try to pacify the population is just going to get them stuck in a quagmire …” They were even more astonished when, less than 6 months later, Putin ordered a withdrawal of Russian troops (while still maintaining his air bases and air-defense systems and enough troops to protect Russian assets).

cabbages and kings (Northern Echo)

cabbages and kings (Northern Echo)

But pigs have wings in Syria and Putin is proving himself to be the King to Obama’s cabbage.

Why — and how — Russia won in Syria

A day after Putin announced a Russian withdrawal from Syria, it’s clear that his gamble has turned into a major win for Moscow. Here’s what Russia achieved — and why it was so successful.

First — and most importantly — Russian bombing turned the tide of the war in Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s favor. When the Russian military deployed to Syria, Assad was in serious trouble, …….. Five months later, …. Assad clearly holds the military upper hand. ……“the Russian reinforcement has changed the calculus completely.”

……. Second, Putin recently achieved an important diplomatic objective by forcing the United States to acknowledge that Russia plays a key role in determining Syria’s future. …… The most recent ceasefire beginning on February 27, however, was negotiated in Geneva directly between the United States and Russia. Both sides agreed to act as equal guarantors for the ceasefire, and Obama concluded negotiations by speaking directly to Putin. As icing on the cake, Moscow recently forced Washington to renounce its position that “Assad must go,” with Secretary of State John Kerry stating “the United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change,” and that the focus was “not on our differences about what can or cannot be done immediately about Assad.”

Third, Putin responded to Turkey’s shoot down of a Russian jet by humiliating Ankara, an emerging rival in the Middle East and Central Asia. Russia deployed advanced S400 surface-to-air missiles near Turkey. ….. Putin also grievously wounded Turkey’s key rebel allies and close ethnic cousins, the Syrian Turkmen. Turkmen rebels reportedly killed the Russian pilots shot down by Turkish jets, and bombing the Turkmen allows Putin to both avenge these deaths — thereby playing to Russian public opinion — while degrading the effectiveness of one of Assad’s enemies.

Putin also hit Turkey where it hurts by playing the “Kurdish card” against Ankara. ……… Russia, though, plays on Turkish fears by providing air support for YPG efforts to fully control the Turkish-Syrian border, ….

Finally, Putin’s Syrian campaign has contributed to weakening the European Union. …….. Russia “weaponizes” refugees by bombing civilian targets and supporting Assad’s troops, thereby causing a substantially greater inflow of refugees into Europe — up to 100,000 from the city of Aleppo alone. Meanwhile, resentment toward Germany’s open-door refugee policy produces rising anger across the EU, ……….

……. Washington’s Syrian policy, meanwhile, remains a hopeless muddle. At various points the Obama administration insisted that “Assad must go” — and that Assad can stay. ……. The United States’ search for moderate rebels led it to support the Free Syrian Army. But FSA militias sometimes tactically ally with al Qaeda’s Syrian branch — effectively putting Washington on the same side at times as the perpetrators of 9/11.

Washington’s Sunni allies have not exactly been trouble-free either. Vice President Joseph Biden publicly accused the Turks, Saudis and Qataris of arming Syrian militants, ………. 

The Obama administration’s proxy strategy epitomizes this confusion. One Pentagon program spent $500 million on a train and equip program …… and even then, the few trainees actually sent into Syria promptly turned their weapons over to al Qaeda.

……….. As Moscow exits the Syrian morass, the five-month-long military campaign represents a clear geopolitical win for Vladimir Putin. 

At least Obama will not be called upon to deal with ISIS in Libya. That is going to be left to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton is more likely to be another cabbage and Donald Trump could be a total disaster but he has a tiny chance of turning out to be a King.


 

The “Oh God! Anybody but Hillary” effect could take Trump all the way

March 3, 2016

The US Presidential election is getting to be extremely entertaining and well beyond my expectations. It looks like it is going to be Trump (85%) versus Hillary (98%) in November. An additional and quite unexpected source of entertainment has emerged as Republicans become contortionists to escape from their previous criticisms of Trump and find a convoluted way to align themselves behind him.

(I note also that many of Trump’s critics in Europe are beginning to realise that it might not be very healthy to be too loud in their criticism and disdain of somebody who could be the next President of the US. The Pope has already backtracked. Some Scottish Nationalists are also becoming intellectual contortionists.)

The Republican “elite” are in abject disarray it seems (but they have been in disarray ever since the Tea Party gained ground). As an opposition they have been pathetic. Even with a resounding majority in the House their establishment chinless wonders (guess who I mean?), have been remarkably ineffective.  “Stop Trump” is their new game, but they can’t. They can – possibly – dislodge him from being the GOP nominee but then he goes independent and then the GOP disintegrates.

For a Trump – Clinton battle in November, all conventional thinking is going to be of little use. The play-book for that game does not yet exist. It will be written from now on. It would, I think, be quite wrong to assume that the Trump then (in the mind’s eye of the electorate) will be the Trump we see now. It will be the perceptions he creates from now on, not those he has created so far, which will turn out to be decisive. Trump is turning out to be a rather smart – and clever – operator, in a clown’s clothing. He is becoming the champion of common sense and seems immune to attacks from “liberal McCarthyism” and from the tyrants of “political correctness”.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that Hillary Clinton would beat Trump easily. Her grass-roots organisation and the “Clinton brand” would, it is thought, rally the hordes to her cause and Trump would be wiped away. But I think conventional wisdom will turn out to be conventional folly in such a battle. Even on the feminism front, Clinton does not appear to have any decisive edge over Trump’s over the top support of being “feminine” (as opposed to feminism), which is sexist only to the most ardent of feminists. Clinton versus Trump will not be about ideologies but will be a battle of perceptions engendered and the emotions that are aroused. Clinton versus Trump will be black-and-white TV versus colour, it will be Blackberry versus the iphone, it will be – put simply – boring but known versus exciting if unknown. Normally unknown would be frightening – but not if the status quo is even more hopeless.

I have a sneaking suspicion that in a Clinton – Trump match-up, Clinton will defeat herself. Boring but known has its attractions when things are going well and the voter wants the status quo to be maintained. But for an electorate wanting “change” there will be little enthusiasm for Hillary. She projects the antithesis of “change”. She represents the worst of the establishment entrenched in their towers of elitism. Even adopting some of Bernie Sanders’ socialist ideas does not lift her up from “boring”. Obama promised “change” and “hope” and delivered neither. “American values” which made America “great” seem to have been diluted by too many years of wishy-washy liberalism.

“Oh God! Anybody but Hillary” and an anti-establishment tsunami could make Donald Trump President of the United States.

The best deal for the UK in the EU will only come after a NO vote in the referendum

February 8, 2016

A view from afar of Cameron’s negotiations with the EU.


I have seen my share of negotiations over 40 years and my judgement is that the current negotiations are far away from the crunch. They are just not serious. In fact they are a little naive. To think that the UK can get a “best deal” without first formally rejecting a proposal goes against everything I think I know about negotiations. The simple, fundamental reality is that the UK will get a better deal only after it has first rejected the “best deal” that the EU and Cameron can cobble together.

No party in a negotiation ever gives up some cherished position except when it perceives a real threat. There is just no real threat or incentive for the EU to pursue real reforms as long as Cameron has effectively promised that he will campaign in favour of whatever “deal” he brings to the referendum. The EU will not negotiate seriously with the UK until after a NO vote in the referendum.

The EU desperately needs to reform. The bureaucracy of the European Commission and the parasitic European Parliament need to be respectively, defanged and eliminated. The EU needs the UK to stay in and the UK would be better off in a reformed EU (but could be better off outside if the EU insists on setting up the Holy European Empire).

The current negotiations are not serious. They are primarily cosmetic and known – by both parties – to be cosmetic. The discussions will only get serious when a referendum has delivered a resounding NO and it is seen by the EU countries that a BREXIT is really possible. Right now they expect that some cosmetic changes – especially about high visibility issues like benefits and non-EU immigration, will be sufficient for placating Cameron and for allowing him to take a “good deal” into the referendum. But they are not even talking about the real issues of EC autocratic rule and the redundant layer of the EU parliament.

Of course Cameron would have to be sacrificed. The sequence would be:

  1. Cameron brings “best deal” to a referendum,
  2. the referendum would reject the deal and vote for BREXIT
  3. Cameron resigns,
  4. new PM would initiate formal move to request an exit from the EU,
  5. EU would come with a “better” deal,
  6. a new referendum would be called on the grounds that “substantial” improvements had been offered
  7. 2nd referendum votes YES and for BREXIN

 

Danish revelations about Snowden suggest Swedish charges against Assange were trumped up for rendition to the US

February 5, 2016

The ridiculousness of the Swedish charges against Assange have always left with me with a sneaking suspicion that there is a very murky back story lurking somewhere. On the surface it just seems like Swedish feminism gone mad. But the Swedish Justice system does not pursue even murderers with the viciousness with which it has pursued Assange. It has seemed like just another crazy, paranoid, conspiracy theory to think that it was all engineered at the request of the US authorities to try and get Assange (by extraordinary rendition) to the US. But it does not look like such a crazy theory any more.

Assange and Wikileaks have been a thorn in the side of the US authorities. Just as Snowden and his associates were. The UK government was very active in helping the US authorities try to get hold of Snowden and his associates. It has now been revealed that by the Danish Justice minister that the Danish government of the time led by Social Democratic prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt was also ready to allow the rendition of Edward Snowden to the US on the flimsiest of paperwork. The FBI had requested the assistance from all the Scandinavian countries and it is pretty clear that Sweden and Norway and probably Finland would also have cooperated.

With the level of Danish cooperation with the FBI for the possible rendition of Snowden now being admitted, it does not seem that far fetched that Sweden, with its desire to join NATO, would also go to extraordinary lengths to be in the “good books” of the US.

The clear intention of the Danish government to cooperate with the US over Snowden suggested that Scandinavian governments “would probably do the same with Julian Assange”, were he to travel to Sweden to face rape allegations

I begin to suspect that the framing of charges against Assange – on extremely flimsy grounds – after the prosecutor’s office had first declined to proceed was a ruse devised at the highest levels of Reinfeld’s government to get Assange to the US via Sweden and gain a number of brownie points while doing so. Perhaps Assange has good reason to be paranoid.

The Guardian:

A US government jet was lying in wait in Copenhagen to extradite the whistleblower Edward Snowden if he had come to Scandinavia after fleeing to Moscow in June 2013, the Danish government has revealed.

……. Søren Pind, the justice minister, wrote to Danish MPs (pdf): “The purpose of the aircraft’s presence in Copenhagen airport is most likely to have been to have the opportunity to transport Edward Snowden to the United States if he had been handed over from Russia or another country.”

“I must note that my answer was not adequate at this point,” he wrote in the letter, dated Thursday 4 February and revealed by MPs on Friday. “Usually, information of this nature is confidential because of Denmark’s relations with foreign states. In view of the impression that my earlier answer may have created, I think it proper to inform parliament thereof. The US authorities have also been informed.”

Nicholaj Villumsen, MP and foreign affairs spokesman for the Red Green Alliance, said: “It is grotesque that the then government put the interests of the United States above citizens’ freedoms. They violated fundamental democratic rights. We owe Edward Snowden a big thank you for his revelations of illegal US mass surveillance. Denmark should therefore in no way participate in the hunt for him.”

The clear intention of the Danish government to cooperate with the US over Snowden suggested that Scandinavian governments “would probably do the same with Julian Assange”, were he to travel to Sweden to face rape allegations, Villumsen said. Assange’s insistence that he faces a risk of extradition was a central aspect of his appeal to the UN working group on arbitrary detention, which on Friday ruled in his favour.

Time for Sweden’s Moderate Party to show some courage

February 5, 2016

At the last general election in September 2014 the Moderate Party led Alliance lost its mandate to govern. That passed to the Red/Green combination of the Social Democrats and the Environmental Party who still needed the support of the Left (Communist) Party to become a viable minority government.

Currently the Swedish Parliament has 349 members from 8 parties.

Social Democrats – 113, Moderates – 84, Sweden Democrats – 49, Environment Party – 25, Centre Party – 22, Left Party – 21, Peoples Party – 19, Christian Democrats – 16.

Swedish political landscape 2014

Swedish political landscape 2014

In December 2014, the Moderate led Alliance entered into a “collusion of the cowardly”, called the December agreement, promising to allow the Red/Green group to govern. The Alliance was dominated by fears of getting the unwanted support of the right wing Sweden Democrats and they had a new party leader in Anna Kinberg-Batra. She was still finding her feet, which meant that the cowardly wing of the Moderates (in my perception led by Tomas Tobé) got their way.

Fortunately one of the smaller alliance parties, the Christian Democrats, refused to ratify the December Agreement at their convention in October 2015, and that finally killed it. Though the Moderates now lead the Social Democrats in the polls, the establishment still prefers to abdicate its responsibilities as an opposition.

Moderates now largest party in the polls

Even though – and probably because – the Sweden Democrats have indicated that if the Alliance present their own combined autumn budget this year they will – without preconditions – vote for it to ensure its passing, the Moderates are still vacillating about presenting such a budget which could actually be passed and remove the Red/Green government from power. They seem to prefer to present separate party budgets which will surely lose than to present a combined Alliance budget which might well win. They are just too scared to be seen to rely on support from the Sweden Democrats, officially or not and even without preconditions.

My definition of cowardice is when actions are subordinated to fears. Courage is when fears are subordinated to purpose.

The December Agreement and the present vacillation of the Moderates is an almost classical case of cowardice. It is time they grew a backbone and started opposing the Red/Green/Communist nonsense that they are letting go through by default. It is time for Anna Kinberg-Batra to put her foot down and exhibit a little bit of courage.


I pay my membership dues to the Moderate Party – even if I am not very politically active beyond voting.


 

John Cleese – “Political correctness creating 1984”

February 2, 2016

That “political correctness” is oppressive is self-evident. It is the tool that the liberal left have been using – with some success – to shut down opposing views by stifling them. Political correctness is nothing more than trying to control other people’s behaviour (and sometimes even their thoughts). More often than not, for the mob applying pc to shut others up, it is a sign of their abdication of thought. It is a shame that so many young people on college campuses just follow the herd rather than thinking for themselves. But nearly always, the instigator of a pc campaign will be a left leaning activist who would deny others the freedom of thinking.

Now even John Cleese has been moved to attack the political correctness that so dominates university campuses.

EntertainmentBritish actor John Cleese, of Monty Python fame, says the enforcement of political correctness has come at the expense of comedy. 

In a video for Big Think, Cleese speaks specifically about college campuses, where he says he’s been warned not to perform because “any kind of criticism or any individual or group could be labeled cruel.”

Cleese also recalled something said to him about the issue by London psychiatrist Robin Skynner, with whom he’s worked on two books about psychology and psychiatry.

“[Skynner] said, ‘If people can’t control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people’s behavior.’ And when you’re around super-sensitive people, you cannot relax and be spontaneous because you have no idea what’s going to upset them next,” says Cleese.

He adds, “The whole point about humor, the whole point about comedy, and believe you me I”ve thought about this, is that all comedy is critical … All humor is critical. If you start to say, ‘We mustn’t; we mustn’t criticize or offend them,” then humor is gone. With humor goes a sense of proportion. And then as far as I’m concerned, you’re living in 1984.”

Jerry Seinfeld made the same point last year:

…. “I hear that all the time,” Seinfeld said on The Herd with Colin Cowherd. “I don’t play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, ‘Don’t go near colleges. They’re so PC.’”

Seinfeld says teens and college-aged kids don’t understand what it means to throw around certain politically-correct terms. “They just want to use these words: ‘That’s racist;’ ‘That’s sexist;’ ‘That’s prejudice,’” he said. “They don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.”