Tuesday, 6 December 2016
‘Pakémon’ Stickers Found Plastered Across London Urge Deporting of Sadiq Khan

I held off sharing these in the hope I could spot some myself while up London yesterday, but I think the authorities have cleared them all down. The London papers have been describing them as 'vile' and racist'. Personally I think most of them are in a good satirical tradition and fair comment (as well as being most amusing) British Transport Police are treating them as a 'hate' crime and one arrest has been made. There is a text alert line to the British Transport Police if you spot one of these; I didn't and I wouldn't. From Breitbart and Metro

A man has been arrested after satirical “Pakémon” stickers were plastered across London, featuring well-known Muslims with the tagline “Gotta catch and deport them all”.

The posters mimic Pokémon playing cards, which sport the tagline “Gotta catch ‘em all” along with stats on Pokémon characters. The spoof posters assign “Terror points” as well as giving a description of each person and listing a “weakness”.

Among those featured, is London Mayor Sadiq Khan, dubbed ‘Hamaskhan’, a reference to the Palestinian terror group Hamas. 

Below a photo of Khan, the text reads: “Description: Probably the most dangerous Pakémon, Hamaskhan believes that Londoners should learn to accept Islamic terrorism whilst he is mayor. 
“Weaknesses: Hamaskhan’s hatred of Christians and Jews will result in him losing power and a long prison sentence.”
He has been assigned 200 ‘terror points’.

Another features Muslim convert Jordan Horner, who called for sharia law in London.

The text reads: “Gingermo is not a true Pakémon, having converted to Islam believing he might make some friends who are as angry and weak-minded as himself.” His “weakness” is listed as an “allergy to sunlight”.

Barack Obama is also featured (he’s not actually Islamic but is described as ‘the USA’s Muslim in Chief’), along with offensive racist caricatures such as ‘Uberrapey’.

Stickers have been reported all over the capital, including Bromley, Surbiton and Waterloo.

A spokesman for British Transport Police urged people to report any sightings of the stickers.

He said: ‘British Transport Police is committed to preventing incidents of hate crime and prejudice and all incidents of this nature are investigated thoroughly. Everyone has the right to travel on the rail network without fear or intimidation. Racially or religiously motivated crime will simply not be tolerated.’

Posted on 12/06/2016 12:46 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Tuesday, 6 December 2016
Guatemala Holds the Key to Defeating Illegal Immigration

by Steve Hecht

Guatemala may fly under the radar of US media, but how Donald Trump handles this Central American nation will be crucial to restoring the rule of law on immigration. As William La Jeunesse noted on Tucker Carlson Tonight, “the real problem the border patrol is experiencing now isn’t Mexicans trying to sneak in, but Central Americans wanting asylum.” 

With a 540-mile border and more than 130 entry points into Mexico, Guatemala is the jumping-off point for both domestic emigrants and those of neighboring countries, as well as from Asia and the Middle East on their way to the United States. Mexico has proved incapable of stemming the flow of illegals transiting north.

The Guatemalan government has almost no presence in the rural areas that border Mexico, as local armed gangs suppress the population and oppose development projects. They operate with  protection from the national government, which acts under pressure from the Obama administration.

Naturally, rural Guatemalans yearn to escape, as they suffer from violence, lack of opportunity, and little to no confidence in their nation's future. This law of the jungle also leaves no viable way to process and impede foreign migrants on their way to Mexico and the United States.

The Obama administration's response has been the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador), first announced in late 2014. The $3.75 billion funding for five years — with oversight from USAID, US ambassadors, and local governments — is supposed to go to projects with private-sector participation.

The true objective of these funds, however, has been to garner submission from the purported beneficiaries. The lever opens the door for a collectivist foreign-policy agenda, which directly undermines the economic development of these nations and the livelihoods of the would-be emigrants. An ironic symptom of this approach is that private investors are unwilling to partner with Alliance for Prosperity projects, which do have potential to promote development.

Vice President Joe Biden made three trips to Guatemala from mid-2014 to mid- 2015, one of which was to meet only with President Otto Pérez to discuss one topic: the extension of the UN-appointed Anti-Impunity Commission (CICIG). When asked by the press about the future of the commission, Biden said it would stay, period.

The commission is under the thumb of its major funder, the Obama administration. Its collectivist orientation has brought it into coalition with the nation's Marxist faction, including violent groups that descend from the guerrilla of Guatemala's decades-long internal armed conflict.  The CICIG commissioner and the US ambassador even smile for cameras with leaders of violent groups such as the Committee of United Campesinos (CUC).

The Obama administration’s policies in Central America have been driving those countries toward the anti-American autocrats that run Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela. 

Reuters reported that Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador have joined forces to petition Mexico and other countries to forge a joint strategy regarding the new U.S. administration.  “Trump's election upset has sent shockwaves through Mexico and Central America, which rely heavily on U.S. remittances and bilateral trade.” 

Instead of viewing Trump as an adversary, Latin American nations can work with his administration to bring development and stability to their region of the world. That is the real solution -- a win-win outcome in which Latin Americans need not flee their homelands and Trump can avert illegal immigration before it arrives at his proposed border wall.

For his part, Trump should see through the top-down approach of the collectivists who preach concern for and claim to represent the indigenous population. The truth is the indigenous population of Guatemala, the majority of emigrants, would welcome liberation from self-proclaimed human-rights advocates, bankrolled mostly by Europeans and protected by the Obama administration and the United Nations.

Trump need only make clear that he will support Guatemala to immediately enforce the laws on the books. In particular, that means going after the armed gangs that deprive indigenous campesinos of their liberty and economic opportunity. Guatemalan officials already have the capability, but they've been reluctant to stand up to the Obama administration and its UN surrogate.

The proper application of Guatemala's laws and resulting development would not only reduce the incentive to emigrate, it would attract some expats to return and reduce the flow of other immigrants through their country. Guatemala could then pave the way for other Central American nations to foster a positive relationship with the United States and emulate the success.

Trump's promise of decentralization and a confrontation with the crony classes is just the medicine Latin America needs as well. For centuries, collectivists and mercantilists have consolidated power, impeded competition, and kept Latin American people in poverty. Now the president-elect and the Congress have the opportunity to set the wheels in motion for that to change, to unleash prosperity south of the border — because prosperous neighbors are the best neighbors.

Steve Hecht, a graduate of Columbia University, is a businessman who has lived in Guatemala since 1972. He has written widely about the country’s politics and produced the mini-documentary “From Hillary With Love” that details the Clinton-Obama role in imposing a collectivist regime on Guatemala.
Fergus Hodgson contributed to this article. Based in Argentina, he is the chief executive of Antigua International, the roving editor of Gold Newsletter, and a research fellow with the Tax Revolution Institute in Washington, DC.
Posted on 12/06/2016 9:29 AM by Steve Hecht
Tuesday, 6 December 2016
“A President Should Not Say That”

by Hugh Fitzgerald

Now that Francois Hollande has taken himself out of the running for President of France, knowing that he was certain to lose, it is time to consider his continuing education, and mixed signals, on the subject of Islam. In his speech on December 1, he worried about “extremism,” by which he apparently meant not Muslim terrorists but rather Marine Le Pen, whose Front National is outspoken in its opposition to the growing Muslim presence in France, a position that has earned the National Front the usual misleading epithets of “right-wing” and “extreme right-wing.” From this one might conclude that Hollande had learned little about the Islamic threat during his quinquennat. But just months before, in October, an astonishing book appeared, A President Should Not Say That… (Un président ne devrait pas dire ça…), which details 61 private conversations Hollande held with Le Monde journalists Gerard Davet and Fabrice Lhomme between 2012, shortly after his election, and this year.

Hollande showed in his replies to the journalists that he had indeed learned something about Islam, and consequently was anxious about the future of France in light of its burgeoning Muslim population.

The revelation that Francois Hollande is worried about the influence and power of Islam, disturbed by the demographic gains made by Muslims, can only be regarded as salutary, for if a Socialist President expresses alarm about Muslims, this acts as a license for others to do likewise. There is less inhibition, less fear of being tarred with that epithet “Islamophobic” when even Socialists— first Manuel Valls, and now Francois Hollande — speak some home truths about Islam in France.

What did President Hollande say? He admitted what was obvious to many, but a big leap for the Left, that France has a problem with Islam: “it’s true there’s a problem with Islam. It’s true. It’s not in doubt.” And while he hadn’t recognized it before (before, that is, the series of Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris and Nice and Rouvray and Magnanville and Toulouse), he has also changed his mind on mass Muslim immigration; he now warns that “I think there are too many arrivals.” Everyone understood that he meant by that “too many Muslims.”

His most contentious and misunderstood remark was that “the veiled woman of today will be the Marianne of tomorrow.” Marianne is, of course, the symbol of France, the France of liberty and reason. Hollande’s remark was taken out of context, with many assuming he meant it as a warning of a Muslim takeover. Hollande himself explained that what he meant was merely this: that a Muslim woman who did not wear the hijab, who was “liberated” and fully integrated into the culture of France, could indeed symbolize France: “In a way if we can offer the conditions for her self-fulfillment, she will free herself from her veil and become a French woman, whilst remaining religious, if she wants to be, capable of having an ideal,” Hollande said. “This woman would prefer liberty to subjugation.”

The confusion here is not yours, dear reader, but Hollande’s. He seems to believe that a Muslim woman can still be considered a Muslim – by other Muslims – even when she not only stops wearing the veil, but becomes “a French woman,” which would mean, among other things, enjoying complete equality with Muslim men. What Muslim cleric, what Muslim man, would consider such a woman to be a “Muslim”? What Muslim man would permit his wife, or his daughter, to behave as if they were equal to men, no longer subject to his commands? In what way could such a hypothetical Muslim woman “remain religious,” if she sheds everything that is required of Muslim women, including their submission to their husbands and fathers? Such a woman might well “prefer liberty to subjugation” — but the subjugation of women is central to mainstream Islam. Hollande’s hypothetical Muslim Marianne is only a forlorn hope, a Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslim. But at least Hollande admitted that a Muslim, if veiled, should not be considered to be “French.”

Where does this leave Francois Hollande on the subject of Islam? Confused, and confusing. On the one hand, he says that “it’s true there’s a problem with Islam.” He does not say – he cannot allow himself to say – that this “problem” is not susceptible of solution, but only of amelioration (by limiting the number of Muslims in France, and by ending the support of all kinds, from every level of government, on which Muslim families batten, including free or heavily subsidized housing, free medical care, free education, even family allowances for children or, in some cases, free food), because that “solution” would require tampering with the texts of Islam, above all with the immutable Qur’an that cannot be touched. He says that “there are too many arrivals,” but does not follow that observation with a commonsensible demand for a halt to all Muslim immigration, and still less would he have dared to suggest that Muslim migrants ought to be sent home. He seems to think a Muslim woman can become in every respect a “French woman” and somehow still remain a Muslim in the eyes of other Muslims, which means he misunderstands the permanently subordinate role of women in Islam, an ideology that describes women as clearly inferior to men.

On December 1, announcing his decision not to run again, Hollande – as noted in the first paragraph above — spoke of his fear of “extremism.” By this, he made clear, he meant not the “extremism” of certain Muslims in France whose presence has forced the French nation into a permanent etat d’urgence (state of emergency), with both police and the military out in force in cities, towns, and even villages all over France (offering an unnerving contrast to the many gaily-lit Christmas markets that are under special protection), but rather, Marine Le Pen, the one political figure who has consistently focused on the problem of Islam and is prepared to do something about it. And finally, as his last confusing word on the subject, Hollande tweeted on December 1 that “I only have one regret, and that’s to have proposed a policy allowing the government to strip citizens of their nationality. I thought it would unite us, but it has divided us.” For his only regret to be about what was perhaps his most sensible proposal, to strip convicted terrorists with dual-citizenship of their French nationality, and then to deport them, is disturbing.

So, when the hurly-burly’s done, and the battle’s lost and won, and the French election is over, and the successful candidate – whether Valls or Fillon or Le Pen, any one of whom will be harder on Islam than Hollande was while in office — would it be too much to ask of Francois Hollande to tell us exactly what he has learned about Islam in France, and what he thinks ought to be done about it, to speak without any regrets or backtracking, since now, out of office, he should feel freer to speak his mind, in order to clear up the confusion which he has exhibited so far, and left, so far, as his main legacy? Please, help us out, aidez-nous. Will the real Francois Hollande please stand up?

First published in Jihad Watch.

Posted on 12/06/2016 7:57 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Tuesday, 6 December 2016
Is Europe Lost?

by Gary Fouse

It is with deep sadness I witness what is taking place in Europe today. I have a connection to the Continent since I spent my army time stationed in Germany (1966-1968) as well as five years in Milan, Italy (1982-1987). I have deep affection for both countries, especially Germany where I return time and time again principally to the town where I was stationed (Erlangen). I wrote a book on the history of Erlangen which enabled me to make many friends there, academics with the university, archivists, historians, and local politicians.

I hate to see what is happening in Germany, Italy and most of the rest of Europe. To be sure, Europeans share in the blame. To be blunt, they did not go about immigration in the right way. First, they needed manual labor. In the 1960s, I was able to see the Italian workers in Germany. If anything, they were the most successful. Today, many of them have become entrepreneurs. It is not an exaggeration to say that in many towns, there are more Italian restaurants than German.

Then came the Turks. They came in droves to Germany, and to be sure, they faced discrimination. Decades ago, a German writer with a swarthy complexion posed as a Turk and worked as a laborer. He wrote a book called, "Ganz Unten" (At the very bottom) about how badly he was treated by Germans around him. Many Turks still remain in Germany and many have set down roots, but it hasn't been easy. They also had to tend with the minority who were involved in drug trafficking.

But all that was nothing compared to what is happening in Europe today. Countries decided they not only needed labor, but more diversity and sheer numbers of people who would work to support their aging populations. Europeans tend not to produce enough offspring to keep themselves going. Thus, they needed more people. The problem is that they forgot about the idea of assimilation. They proceeded to import people largely from Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa, who were not willing to assimilate and adopt the liberal, egalitarian values that the Europeans professed especially when they conflicted with Islamic teaching. Thus, countries like Sweden, Holland, Norway, France, the UK, and Germany found themselves with an unassimilated population living in ghettos, which were dangerous to enter. Riots and crime became common. Sweden has become the rape capital of Europe. And now we have the specter of ISIS, which has attracted many European-based Muslims who go back and forth bringing terror to their own nations-witness France and Belgium in particular. Meanwhile Jews living in European cities cannot walk the streets wearing Jewish garb lest they be assaulted, insulted, or spit on-not by Europeans, but by Muslim immigrants. For Jews in Europe, it is the 1930s again. They are emigrating in droves.

In the UK, the demands of the aggressive Muslims, led (up to his recent imprisonment)  by Angem Choudary, have the British government cowering as they demand sharia law and have set up sharia compliance patrols near mosques.

Now, with the wars raging in Syria and Iraq, we have refugees and those posing as refugees. They are flooding Europe, as well as the migrants coming from Africa fleeing poverty and looking for a comfortable welfare state in Europe to support them. Indeed, many if not the overwhelming majority of the "refugees" are young, military-age men unaccompanied with any wives or children ("widows and orphans" as President Obama likes to call them). In Italy, Muslim worshipers create makeshift mosques that spill out onto the streets with overflow worshipers blocking pedestrians and businesses as they do their prayers. In Milan, residents have seen the basements of their apartment buildings turned into make shift mosques with worshipers coming at all hours to pray.

Put all that together and what you have is a perfect storm raging in Europe. France is dealing with rioting migrants living in tent cities first in Calais, now in the heart of Paris, terror from ISIS, and violence all around. Germany is flooded with migrants, and sexual assaults are through the roof. Just this week, Germany is grappling with the rape and murder of a young girl, Maria Ladenburger, in Freiburg. The alleged killer is a 17-year-old Afghan who arrived unaccompanied. Coincidentally, the victim's father is a high-ranking EU official, and Maria and her family had been active in helping refugees in Freiburg.

Europeans are outraged, but their political leaders will not listen to them. Those who speak out face the possibility of being prosecuted, fined or imprisoned for engaging in "hate speech." Dutch politician Geert Wilders, arguably the most courageous man in Europe, is once again being prosecuted for hate speech and will probably face a fine of 5,000 Euros for speaking the truth. In Austria, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf was prosecuted and fined for similar speech. Nevertheless people are organizing and demanding that their governments stop the inflow and take measures to protect them from the out-of-control crime and threat of terrorism. The most notable group is PEGIDA (Patriotische Europäer gegen die islamizierung des Abendlandes or Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West), originally formed in Dresden,Germany with branches now spreading to other countries. Naturally, they are branded as racists and neo-Nazis by the political elite and leftists.

What is particularly outrageous is the unwillingness of the political class and the police to crack down on the miscreants. They are afraid of being called racists, and hate speech laws in Europe are strong. (There is no such thing as the First Amendment in Europe.) Germany especially is ever-mindful of its past, and is very reluctant to take any police measure that would bring back accusations of acting like Nazis. Chancellor Angela Merkel, in particular, has taken the lead on admitting refugees and migrants. She has been tone deaf to the protests against what can only be termed an insane immigration policy.

Many feel that Europe is lost and will become majority Muslim sometime in the mid-21st century. If the demographic current trends and policies continue, I agree. What can stop it?

For one thing, Europe still has elections. If the voters are angry enough - and I think they are - political change may be coming. Most of the Western European countries have rising conservative parties that want to stop the immigration flood. France has just had a primary election which resulted in the center-right Republicans' choice of Francois Fillon, who will challenge Marine Le Pen next year for president. Fillon is considered a liberal, but has been speaking very strongly about Islamism and the threat it poses. The current president, Francois Hollande, announced he will not run again. (I wouldn't either if my approval rating was 4%.)

In Germany, Merkel is running for re-election next year. I cannot imagine she would be successful.

In the Netherlands, Wilders' Vrijheid ("Freedom" Party) is very strong and could rise to power next year. God grant that Wilders would become prime minister of the Netherlands. In the UK, Nigel Farage's UKIP party is also quite strong. Need I mention Brexit, which Farage championed? Even in ultra-liberal Sweden, you have the rising Sweden Democrats under Jimmie Åkesson, a charismatic young leader still in his 30s.

The future of the EU is in doubt with Brexit, the possibility of a Le Pen government in France, and this week's resignation of Matteo Renzi in Italy following the failure of his referendum to cut down the size of the Italian parliament.

Another good sign is that the Eastern European nations are showing more common sense. They don't want the mass inflow of people and they say so.

So if rightist parties in Europe can sweep out Merkel and the rest, will all this madness stop? Will all these hundreds of thousands of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, and future jihadists be sent packing? It will be a massive undertaking. Here in the US, we are talking about whether Donald Trump can really deport 11 million illegal aliens - and most of them are simply working. But if Europe wants to preserve its civilization not to mention its security, safety and freedoms, they must remove as many as they can - certainly the ones who are up to no good or who simply want to come and live off welfare. If that fails, the only thing that would stop this invasion is World War III.

Posted on 12/06/2016 7:43 AM by Gary Fouse
Monday, 5 December 2016
Casey report criticised for focus on UK Muslim communities

The Muslims criticised in Dame Louise Casey's report are not happy at the criticism. From the Guardian the Independent Middle East Eye and the BBC

The study, commissioned by David Cameron as prime minister and carried out by Dame Louise Casey, recommends a new strategy to help bridge divides in the UK, including an “integration oath” to encourage immigrants to embrace British values, and greater focus on promoting the English language and securing “women’s emancipation in communities where they are being held back by regressive cultural practices”.

Dame Louise Casey said she strongly opposed forcing people by law to remove veils, but explained that public bodies needed a “common sense” approach and that people and organisations should be able to debate the issue openly...said she would rather Muslim police officers and midwives did not wear a face veil, “Do I think that police officers or midwives, should be fully veiled? No I don’t. I want to see their faces, most of us do, [but] the very fact that we can almost not have that conversation, is part of what I’m saying here.”

Her report highlighted the plight of women in some Muslim communities, who she said were less likely to speak English and more likely to be kept at home. "Misogyny and patriarchy has to come to an end," Dame Louise said, adding that public institutions must not fear being racist or Islamophobic.

Critics said its focus on Muslim communities ignored other issues such as equality and racism, and was potentially damaging to community relations.

Harun Khan, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said “any initiative that facilitates better integration of all Britons” should be welcomed. But he said the Casey report was a missed opportunity...

He said the MCB in its submissions to the Casey report had pointed out that Muslims had to endure “a media echo chamber which amplifies the misconception that Muslims and their faith are incompatible with life in Britain”.

“We dispute these notions,” he said. “It assumes that Muslims are not equal, and not civilised enough to be part and parcel of British society. It leads to discrimination against Muslims, alienation amongst Muslims where the national conversation dictates that they are not part and parcel of society, and, at worst, violent attacks against Muslims.”

Rita Chada, of the refugee and migrant charity Ramfel, described the report as a “hotchpotch” that had set refugees and migrants back 20 years.

Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, said it was an "inflammatory" and "divisive" report, that deliberately targeted one community over others.  "Sadly in today's Britain, Muslims are seen as an easy target to attack by politicians, commentators and parts of the media without any regard for the impact this has on communities. There was no mention about the responsibility of the white community to help with integration, as many white families flee mixed areas as ethnic minorities move into a particular area," Shafiq said in a statement. “We are saddened that once again British Muslims have become a political football which is bashed from time to time without any regard for the impact this has on individuals who then are subjected to threats and violence,”

Ukip’s immigration spokesman, John Bickley, welcomed what he described as a “damning” report. “It pulls no punches and is an excoriating critique of the Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrat parties’ support of mass immigration, multiculturalism and political correctness,” he said. “For years Ukip has been the only political party willing to point out the failings of mass uncontrolled immigration and multiculturalism … The main parties have singularly failed to address the impact of uncontrolled immigration on mainly working-class communities, and the British people have had enough.”

In a brief statement Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, responded on behalf of the government, describing the report as a “valuable contribution”

Posted on 12/05/2016 12:44 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Monday, 5 December 2016
Sylvia Kedourie Has Died

Most of our readers will be familiar with her illustrious husband, Elie Kedourie, but did you know his wife was also a Middle East scholar? The Telegraph:

Sylvia Kedourie, who has died aged 90, was the widow of the historian Elie Kedourie and herself a distinguished scholar of the history of the Middle East.

She was born Sylvia Haim on December 19 1925 in Baghdad and educated there at the French-language Alliance Israélite Universelle girls’ school, where she experienced as an adolescent the growing oppression and persecution of Iraq’s two-and-a-half-millennia-old Jewish population.

Having travelled with her father and an elder sister to visit France and Britain in 1947, Sylvia enrolled at the University of Edinburgh to study Philosophy....

Posted on 12/05/2016 11:41 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 5 December 2016
The continuing battle for Brexit

by Esmerelda Weatherwax

Today is the first day of the appeal hearing at the Supreme Court to challenge the decision of the High Court in favour of the cabal of wealthy beau monde who are trying to stop the progress of Brexit. We were expecting a rally, lead by Nigel Farage for Brexit in the Parliament square area near the Supreme Court (which is in the building that was formerly Crown Court Middlesex Guildhall, and before that the County (or guild) Hall of the County of Middlesex. This was postponed but there was still activity outside the court in readiness of the hearing. I couldn't stop long as I had to continue elsewhere; friends of mine were able to stay longer and take in more of the activity. These are some photographs of people who want the democratic vote of 17 million people to be heeded, and those who want it trampled on for their own 'elite' purposes. 

Movement for Justice - we fight to win - by any means necessary. Hummmm.....

This bus advertising a dating agency seems to be taking a pro EU, pro unrestricted movement of people line, almost to the point of endorsing marriages of convenience.

Dancing defrocked priest Neil Horan was there dancing spryly. He has some unconventional views; his support for Israel, and Brexit and his distrust of Islam are sound in my opinion, others go beyond the barmpot and into the realms of fantasy. But it takes all sorts, which is what we had in the days before 'diversity'. 

Photographs E Weatherwax London December 2016

Posted on 12/05/2016 11:04 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Monday, 5 December 2016
The Artifact

Commies on Castro

by James Como

A happy day today, December 4th, 2016: Fidel Castro is being burned, his ashes stashed. Amidst a culture that, here and there, worries over micro-aggressions, one of the most egregious macro-aggressors – not least against his own people – has passed into Hell.  (I’m not judging, Lord, I’m just sayin’ . . . ) 

Why bother to rehearse his history of misery?  That would be based on the premise that knowing it would matter to the alt-Left – the DiBlassios, Redfords, Keith Ellisons, Steins, Justin Trudeaus and so many woefully ignorant (willfully ignorant), posturing college students who celebrate this vile dictator’s “achievements.” Yet here we have, not a tragedy but a farce: knowing the truth about this gargoyle – including that he died probably a billionaire – would not stay their ideological exhibitionism. After all, he instituted universal health care, didn’t he? As though the same weren’t true of Cell Block D at Sing Sing.

Next to me as I write is Granma: Organo Oficial De Comite Central del Partido Comunista de Cuba, dated November 26th, 2016. (I will translate as necessary.) The headline reads, “Towards victory always, Fidel!”  Beneath the death notice is the Decree of the National Counsel respecting National Mourning and a press release from the organizing committee: on November 28th, between the hours of 9am and 10pm the population will give a much merited homage to the their leader.  Radio and television will be limited to news only. 

The entire rag is eight tabloid pages long, the inside being covered by photos of Himself, mostly old, many over fifty years old from the glory years. A two-page spread tells us that “the world says goodbye to a giant of history” (and includes nine tweets), and the back page describes “un revolucionario de talla [size] mundial.” My favorite piece, though, comes at the middle fold and is titled “the humanist and humanismo.” (Interesting to me is the utter absence of any mention or image of the serial-killing, homicidal maniac Che Guevarra, whose early popularity in those heady days was such that Castro had to send him abroad, eventually to his death in Bolivia.)

All this must remind one of 1984, but it made me feel like what I imagine a paleontologist must feel like when, on a dig, he finds an artifact, say a piece of odd, abandoned crockery that needs explaining, then discovers that people still use this crap.  It should be a piece of history, dead and discarded. But no: it – what it stands for – survives, even if as an anachronism, useful to Lenin’s Useful Idiots who would co-opt a fictitious glory and so feel the glow of fifth-hand revolutionism.

Odd, isn’t it, how the alt-Left confuses dystopia and utopia?

Posted on 12/05/2016 3:40 AM by James Como
Monday, 5 December 2016
The Center Is Not Holding

by Michael Curtis

It is a hyperbolic overstatement to say that the center cannot hold and mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, but it is fair to recognize that the tectonic plates of European politics are shifting. In one week in November- December 2016 this actuality was illustrated by electoral results in France and Italy, and to a lesser extent in Austria.

In France after the victory on November 28, 2016 of Francois Fillon to be the candidate of the right wing Republic party in the 2017 presidential election, and the growing popularity of Marine Le Pen the leader and candidate of the far right Front National, the incumbent socialist President Francois Holland declared he would not compete in the presidential election.  The public opinion polls indicate that since Fillon and Le Pen are leading, a socialist candidate, whether Prime Minister Manuel Valls, or someone else is unlikely to get to the second round, let alone win.

In Italy, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi faced a crisis over referendum that was defeated by 55% to 45% on Sunday December 4, 2016.  The 41 year old center-left Renzi wanted by a complex referendum to change the constitutional system by which both chambers of parliament had virtually equal powers, and often blocked legislation. Renzi proposed limiting the power of the Senate, thus facilitating the legislative process, and reduce the power of Italy's regional governments, thus providing stronger central government.

The complex referendum, not easily understood by voters, in essence became one on Renzi and his leadership, and on Italian nationalism. For some voters implicitly expressing unhappiness with the EU, the vote was in favor of Exit Italia, the Italian version of Brexit. More important, it showed, as has been the case in other European countries, opposition to immigration. So far in 2016 Italy has taken in 171,000 migrants.

The referendum was primarily opposed by the left leaning Five Star Movement (MSS), by the far right Northern League, and to some extent by the center right Forza Italia. The MSS, founded in 2009 and led by former comedian turned politician Beppe Grillo, who wants Italy to abandon the euro, is a populist, anti-establishment, environmental group. He sees Italy as a “country stuck in the mud.” In the 2013 parliamentary election it gained the second highest number of votes, and won 109 of the 630 parliamentary deputies. The MSS has done well in mayoral elections throughout Italy, as well as in parliamentary elections.

The right wing Northern League founded in 1991wants Italy to become a federal state, and sometimes called for the north on secede and form its own system. It gets about 4 % of the poll.

The advances of the far right in European politics however were halted on December 4, 2016 with the defeat of Norbert Hofer, the candidate of the far right Freedom party, as a candidate to become president of Austria. A victory would have been symbolically important, making him the first far right politician to become head of state in a European country since the end of World War II. Nevertheless, his relatively strong performance will be an encouragement to his own party and also to similar nationalist ones seeking power in other countries.

Norbert Hofer had almost won the presidency in May 2016 obtaining 49.7% of the vote when his opponent Green party candidate Alexander Van der Bellen obtained 50.3 %, an advantage of 30,800 votes. However, because of irregularities in postal ballots in 94 of 117 districts the election result was declared invalid and a rerun was held on December 4, 2016. 

The Austrian Freedom party was founded in 1955 by a former general in the Nazi SS and has a history of antisemitism.   Today, some members of the party wear blue-cornflower on their clothes, a symbol of German nationalism that was used by Nazi Germans as a secret symbol.

The chair of the party since 2005, Heinz-Christian Strache, is a populist, far right politician, more extreme than Hofer. In April 2012, he posted on Facebook a caricature of a Jewish banker with hooked nose. He called Nazi death camps “punishment facilities.” He has attacked German Chancellor Angela Merkel for allowing an unlimited number of migrants into Europe. His platform states, “the uncontrolled influx of migrants alien to our culture who seep into our social welfare system…makes civil war in the medium-term not unlikely.”

 Presidential candidate Hofer is a 45 year old former aeronautical engineer who carries both a walking stick as a result of a paragliding accident in 2003, and a pistol on him. Like Marine Le Pen and unlike Strache, Hofer distanced himself from antisemitism, past and present.

Hofer’s policy is similar to other European far right groups:  anti-immigration, fear of Islamic terrorism, anti-elite, opposition to globalization, and emphasis on national identity. One of his main slogans in his electoral campaign resembles similar rhetoric in the 2016 US presidential campaign: “Your homeland needs you now.” Vienna, he declares, must not become Istanbul. As a strong nationalist, Hofer expresses concern about Turkey and Turks entering Austria. He expresses concern about Turkey, and Turks entering Austria.

If elected he would have called for a referendum on membership of the EU, and for South Tyrol (Alto Adige), which became under Italian control in 1919, and has been an autonomous province since 1948, to be incorporated into Austria. Even more strongly he argued that Islam is not part of Austrian values, and that criminal penalties should be imposed on immigrants committing crimes like rape.

This attempt to limit immigration of Muslim into Europe comes a moment when the belief that Muslims may not be part of the national community is understandable.  A poll in UK in December 2016 shows that Muslims in the country live in enclaves on their own housing estates, have their own schools, and TV channels.  Paradoxically, the report criticizes the British police for “pandering” to ethnic minorities.

43% of Muslims in the country want at least some aspects of Sharia law to be in force and to replace British law. It is disconcerting that a considerable number of Muslims in UK believe conspiracy theories. Some 31% believe that the US government and 7 % believe that Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attacks in US. Only 4% blamed al Qaeda for the terrorist attack on the US.

Many other European countries have seen electoral gains by far right and nationalist parties. They include Switzerland (Swiss People’s Party with 29%), Hungary (Jobbik with 21%), Denmark (Danish People’s Party 21%),  Netherlands (Freedom Party 10%), Greece  (Golden Dawn 7%).  Even in Germany the far right Alternative for Germany party (AfD) in September 2016 got 14% of the vote in the Berlin state election, entering that state parliament for the first time. Indeed, the AfD is now represented in 10 out of Germany’s 16 state parliaments.

In all these countries there is revolt and popular anger against what is seen as the elite and the centrist politics of the country.  The populist backlash that took Trump to the White House and Britain out of the European Union is continuing. President Trump and his administration must formulate policy in the light of the growing populist strength in Europe and the growth of anti-system, extremist nationalist parties.

Posted on 12/05/2016 3:36 AM by Michael Curtis
Sunday, 4 December 2016
Enclaves of Islam see UK as 75% Muslim

From The Sunday Times and the Mail on Sunday

Some Muslims lead such separate lives that they believe Britain is an Islamic country where the majority of people share their faith, according to a report to be published this week.

Evidence gathered by Dame Louise Casey, the government’s community cohesion tsar, will lift the lid on how some Muslims are cut off from the rest of Britain with their own housing estates, schools and television channels. Her report finds that thousands of people from all-Muslim enclaves in northern cities such as Bradford, Dewsbury and Blackburn seldom, if ever, leave their areas and have almost no idea of life outside...the report will send ‘shock waves’ through the system by attacking the Government, and particularly the Home Office, for failing to manage the consequences of mass migration and promote integration.

...the report will (also) criticise the police for ‘pandering’ to ethnic minorities and say some institutions are so politically correct that they are playing into the hands of the far Right.

Dame Louise reportedly had her review delayed by the Home Office because of concerns over its critical tone. Those familiar with the report say Casey, who investigated failings by children’s services at Rotherham council after the child abuse scandal, has seen off attempts by the Home Office to water down her report. One insider said it was going to prove ‘quite hard reading for some people’.

Downing Street declined to comment last night.  


Sir Michael Wilshaw, the departing chief inspector of schools, warns today that about 500 schools in England are either 100% white or 100% ethnic minority — and pupils in them are at risk of alienation and radicalisation.

Wilshaw told The Sunday Times that parallel communities were developing in Britain and children growing up in monocultural schools in these communities were in danger of being cut off from British values and vulnerable to either far-right or Islamist causes. The teaching unions are so far-left that I don't think any child is in danger of exposure to any even vaguely right views in a British school. 

Casey has examined the social alienation felt by the white working class. Although her report will not dismiss the far right it will say that Islamist extremists pose a more serious threat.

The chief inspector said that he was particularly worried about a cluster of 21 schools in Birmingham — many of them primaries with predominantly Muslim pupils — where there were no white pupils. Nearly half of the schools have been judged “less than good”.

Posted on 12/04/2016 4:29 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Saturday, 3 December 2016
Trump: Ready to Lead in First Hundred Days

by Conrad Black

The post-electoral media buzz over the president-elect is surrealistic, in that it seems to reflect the almost universal inability of the U.S. national media to grasp the fact that no one is listening to them and no one cares what they think of anything. The liberal media, the natural enemies and incredulous denigrators of the Trump campaign, have done even more savage violence to their reputation than the anti-Trump conservatives have done to theirs. (The ne plus ultra of this latter bedraggled group is poor Gabe Schoenfeld, who two months ago was soliciting my help in denouncing Donald Trump as a Nazi, but tweeted the world this week that I was just "a convicted felon." Yes, Gabe, and proud of having successfully fought the injustices of genuine American fascists – the Chicago prosecutors.)

Some of the media are focused on the supposed need for Donald Trump to divest himself of his business interests, rather than just hand control of them over to his family, because of the corrosive danger that he might speak with family members in ways that could redound unfairly to the benefit of those interests.

This is nonsense. He need not be held to a higher standard of enforced disinterest than any of his predecessors just because he is the first serious and successful businessman to be elected president. Obviously he has to avoid direct conflicts and must take effective measures to be sure that his family's interests do not benefit unfairly from insider information. Some mechanism will have to be put in place to give some assurance on these points, but it is a bit rich for the media, which were pretty quiescent with the long-running Clinton pay-to-play casino, to become so unctuous about the moral imperative of Trump putting the company he has run for more than 40 years so far out of reach that no one he ever sees or speaks with has any association with it.

Equally absurd is the continued overreaction of elements of the media to the president-elect's teaser-tweets. During the campaign, he was admonished not to allow his opponents to goad and provoke him into undignified reactions. It wasn't bad advice, but the counselors in that case should heed their own advice. Donald Trump knows perfectly well that citizenship rightfully acquired can't be revoked, and that most legally competent people have a perfect right to burn an American flag if they wish, just as they can burn a fire-log or autumn leaves. Perhaps this mad notion arises from the same neuralgic zone of his mind that inflicted on us the fatuity of the birther controversy, and that reads the National Enquirer. In some circumstances, excessively provocative or offensive displays of disrespect for national symbols can be sanctioned, though not with the draconian consequences of imprisonment and expulsion from citizenship (the punishment the Soviet Union meted out to Alexander Solzhenitsyn).

The media should by now have learned the lesson that it is a more complicated business than it thought it was to assess when Trump is serious, when he is maneuvering tactically, and when he is simply engaging in self-amusement. The country, including the press, has not seen enough of him in this new role to do any more than cautiously report facts. The impulse to lunge, as if at a beleaguered, forlorn hunchback, lingers like an addiction.

All free societies require a free press that contains important responsible elements. The United States is now almost without that, and no one but the media can rebuild the media's credibility, and they can do it only by imposing professional standards of integrity on themselves and steadily rebuilding their professional reputation from the archeological levels it has plumbed in the late election campaign.

The media seem not to have noticed that Trump is preparing a mighty policy revolution, fulfilling explicitly his reform promises that won him the nomination and the election. All of his selections to date to important positions have been impressive, though there is some legitimate concern about the conspiracy-theory vocation of Breitbart, formerly directed by counselor-designate Stephen Bannon. The initial effort to portray Bannon as an anti-Semite was a complete fiction, and his performance as campaign strategist was impressive. The new education secretary, Betsy DeVos, is a strong champion of charter schools and her appointment presages the de-emphasis of the state education systems that have almost been destroyed by the shameful antics of the teachers' unions, to which the Democratic party is bound, hand and foot.

Nominating Elaine Chao, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell's wife, as secretary of transportation seems somewhat inspired, as she will be largely responsible for implementation of Trump's New Deal like program for putting the unemployed to work repairing scandalously decayed American infrastructure. The new health and human services secretary, Tom Price, is the Congress's ranking expert for the promised radical reform of Obamacare, and Steven Mnuchin, apparently the next Treasury secretary, appears to be well qualified to carry through Trump's promised tax reforms and spending reductions. Attempts to tar him with the brush of Wall Street, 14 years after he left Goldman Sachs and moved to California and set up his own hedge fund, are piffle.

Although we are awaiting the nomination of a secretary of state, it is clear that, as promised, the mad Obama love-in with Iran is almost over, and Trump was right to warn Raúl Castro that if he doesn't do better for the people of Cuba, Trump will revisit Obama's precipitate embrace of that ghastly Stalinist dictatorship, which, in 57 oppressive years, has driven almost all of Cuba's middle class to Florida, where they greatly enriched that state, and helped deliver it to Trump on Election Day. Everyone who is on the national-security team and most of those auditioning for it look like they will help the new president enact an Eisenhower program – one in which the country has a realistic strategic interest, steers clear of needless danger, and executes theatrical shows of strength where there is no risk. (Eisenhower ended the Korean War and stayed clear of Vietnam, and the Marine landings in Lebanon and the Gilbert and Sullivan saber-rattling over Quemoy and Matsu did not cause a single American casualty.)

The emerging story is that Trump is packing his government with people admirably equipped to work closely with the Republican leadership in the Congress. (It was only nine months ago that Ms. Chao's husband was advising his congressional colleagues to be ready to "drop [Trump] like a hot rock," and two months ago that Speaker Ryan was running like a gazelle for the tall grass.) Trump has declared his intention to put through a comprehensive reform of taxes, spending, infrastructure renovation, health care, campaign financing, immigration, and trade in the first Hundred Days of his administration. The Republican leadership in Congress are working feverishly to prepare the agenda, while the Democrats debate the fate of the vaguely amiable Democratic antique, Nancy Pelosi.

It is obvious to everyone except the myopic Washington press, fumbling about like punch-drunk prizefighters too often concussed to swing at a moving target accurately, that Donald Trump is preparing to come out of the gate like a fire engine and join Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan as a transformative president. Now that he is about to take the oath, apart from a few diversionary tweets, he is cranking up to do what he promised, and has been given a mandate, to do. If the outgoing president had done the same, Mrs. Clinton would be moving back into the White House.

Posted on 12/03/2016 3:04 PM by Conrad Black
Saturday, 3 December 2016
Taliban suspect arrested in southwest Germany

From Deutsche Welle

German officials have detained a 20-year-old Afghan on suspicion of being a member of the Taliban. The man had fought against security forces in his home country, German prosecutors say.

German authorities identified the suspect as Hekmat T. on Friday, saying that the Afghan joined the Taliban as a teenager in 2013. He was repeatedly involved in the attacks on the Afghanistan police and security forces before traveling to Europe, Karlsruhe-based federal prosecutors said, without providing details on why he was in Germany.

The news of the arrest in the southwest German state of Rhineland-Palatinate comes only two weeks after the police in nearby Bavaria detained another young Afghan national. According to the prosecutors, the 17-year-old boy also joined the Taliban in 2013 and took part in armed clashes until 2015.

Both men are to stay in jail until their respective trials.

Last month, a powerful truck bomb also targeted the German consulate in the Mazar-i-Sharif city, killing six people and injuring over a hundred more. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack

Posted on 12/03/2016 6:12 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Saturday, 3 December 2016
Muslims win as Kidero bans beer festival in CBD at the last minute

This headline has itself been criticised on the Nairobi News facebook page
"Ruto Zephy this reporter need to be trained on how to report issues its not about who win between Muslims and the other team its about the residents"
and comments both on the Nairobi News and another Kenyan newspaper The Star seem to favour the ban, and consider the event to be 'disrespectful' so near any place of worship. It has been suggested that Uhuru park would be a better venue; I seem to remember that Nairobi's Anglican cathedral is adjacent to the park. 

Police and city askaris were on Friday deployed to stop a beer fest that was set to kick off at 6pm next to the Jamia mosque

Governor Evans Kidero banned the Tusker Street Bash at the last minute following a protest by Muslim leaders over the beer fest that was to be held near their worship place. 

Kidero on his facebook page said, "While we respect the need for business to roll out their marketing activities, we must be conscious and not lose sight or respect for principles and beliefs of different religions". On his twitter handle, Kidero said through a hashtag 'keeping our word' that his government was committed to offering better city life to all regardless of their status.

Jamia Mosque Committee Secretary General Abdul Bary Hamid, in a protest letter, had told Dr Kidero that the noise from the street party will affect Friday prayers. In the letter seen by the Star, the committee said facilitating the promotion of alcohol right at their doorstep of the mosque was not only an anathema but a provocation to members of the Muslim community.

"We have gravelly noted that Tusker promotion event by East African Breweries is being organized right outside our mosque. It is well known that due to adverse health and social effects of alcohol consumption, strict regulations aimed at limiting the consumption of alcohol have been enacted in the country and we cannot understand why the county council is going out of its way to encourage its consumption more so at the doorsteps of a religious institution," read a letter addressed to governor Kidero.

The letter said the loud noise out of the event would interfere with prayers at the mosque.

Police deployed at the venue of the planned beer fest outside Mojo's Club ordered for the immediate dismantling of tents and sound system (below) that had been set-up to entertain revellers

Performances by musicians Khaligraph Jones and Wangeci were expected.

I don't know Swahili but the English language comments mostly support the Governer and criticise the brewery for chosing the wrong street. This is a sample.

"I am in full agreement. We do not need these so called festivals that are actually a lame excuse for debauchery."

"Medi Medi Not Muslim won......common sense prevailed, humanity and self conscious won the day."

Posted on 12/03/2016 4:21 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Friday, 2 December 2016
Tommy Robinson visited Israel: A response to the Jewish Chronicle’s attack
by Brian of London
I invited Tommy Robinson to Israel for two reasons. I wanted to show him the real boundaries of Zionism today and give him a glimpse of the almost unfathomably deep connection between Jews and Israel.
I achieved both on our first day, starting from the beach in Tel Aviv, swinging through Arad and driving all the way north across Judea and Samaria along the west bank of the Jordan river, passing Massada and the Qumran caves as we headed to our destination on the shores of the Kinneret.

Tommy certainly has a colourful past and it’s all explained in his book, Enemy of the State. I’ve known him years but hadn’t met him till  I arrived to pick him up from the beach in Tel Aviv where I told him and his friends to wait for me on the first morning of our trip.

Tommy learned of the amazing links between Jews and our land over the next few days. He saw Jewish and Christian history and our obvious, deep love for our land. He saw the stunning country we built out of the diseased ruin it had become under a succession of emperors, sultans, caliphs and Imperial British troops.

Since his earliest days opposing supremacist Islam on the streets of Luton, Tommy knew most of what he heard about Israel in the mainstream press was distorted. He knew how badly his own story had been twisted and could see the same being done to Israel.

We met Arabs, Jews, including an Aramaean Christian priest, IDF soldiers, Beduins, Palestinian “refugee” children, a Christian Arab exiled from Gaza and rude Jordanian guards on the Temple Mount. Tommy spoke with everyone with an open mind and heart. And we tweeted it all to his “142,000 followers”.


Tommy with Aramaean Christian Priest, Nazareth – Photo: T.T.

When we tweeted an unplanned picture on a tank on the Golan Heights, a Muslim pressure group in the UK seriously suggested that Tommy posing in shorts and flip-flops while gingerly holding a gun, was equivalent to Jihadi John beheading journalists in Syria.

I don’t believe Marcus Dysch has met or even spoken to Tommy Robinson yet he writes with great authority that Tommy’s

‘support’ for Israel and Jews was designed simply as a provocation to British Muslims”.

What nonsense. Do you hurl this baseless accusation at Douglas Murray, Col. Richard Kemp, Pat Condell or many other non-Jews who proudly support Israel? Why not? Why do you single Tommy out? Is it his accent? Did he use the wrong fork at dinner? He didn’t go to the right college at Oxford? He didn’t go to Oxford, unless you include his speech to the Oxford Union. One can only think it is your own bigotry. You clearly have never bothered to asked Tommy why he supports Israel.

Tommy had no need of seeking out new provocations in the UK. He challenged Muslims’ reverence for some of the very questionable deeds of their prophet. That was all the “provocation” they needed: everything can be a provocaiton if they wish. The death threats and repeated attacks on his life did not stem from waving an Israeli flag. Perhaps you don’t understand that the very existence of a non-dhimmi, Jewish State of Israel, rejecting Islamic Sharia and refusing to bow before Islam is a provocation to Muslims. Non-Jews who support Israel are no such provocation.

Your timid Jewish community in Britain, which is so careful not to rock the boat or vigorously defend “settlement activites” may not “desire any links whatsoever with Robinson and his ilk”. But I can assure you that strong and proud Jews in Israel feel much the same about you and the subservient parts of UK Jewry who seem more concerned with their future peerages than the real security of Israel.

Tommy has suffered persecution at the hands of the British state that rivals stories I’ve heard from Natan Sharansky about the Soviet Union. You might not want to believe that your host nation is capable of forcing a man to plead guilty to ridiculous charges to avoid having his wife jailed, but it is.

Through my friendship with Tommy, I can reach out to his growing following. That goes beyond him, reaching the large numbers of disaffected people in the UK who voted to leave the EU and Europeans preparing to elect new leaders, as well as Americans who have sent Donald Trump to the White House.

Most of these people don’t hate Jews. It is counter productive to malign their honest fears for a future where their daughters risk being beaten for venturing outside with short sleeves. They haven’t been poisoned by the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. But if you reject them and dismiss their fears as Islamophobia or racism, you compromise the integrity of the Jewish people?—?and this is what could send some of them into the arms of the real Jew-haters and xenophobes. That is why I showed Tommy (and by extension, his followers) the boundaries of Zionism. Zionism’s physical boundaries are the borders of the State of Israel. They have nothing to do with some ridiculous conspiracy about a globalist takeover.

Tommy’s followers are people who know Islam because they live alongside it in the UK. What they see is not the ingratiating Islam you meet in your gentrified interfaith dialogue sessions. No?—?what they see every day is the Islam that beat up my gay, Guardian-reading-friend (who formed the EDL’s LGBT division) on the streets of Tower Hamlets or that drove the Luton Hebrew Congregation out of Bury Park in Luton in 2001.

Tommy was amazed (as I am too) at the level of co-existence between Arabs and Jews in Israel. I hope he saw that having our strong Jewish identity here allows us to live with Islam better. He was horrified at the manufactured conditions of poverty in the refugee camp in Bethlehem (we sneaked inside). He heard the inhabitants express their contempt for the PA fat cats who steal billions of dollars and euros in aid and keep kids living with pictures of terrorists on every corner as heroes.

Your organ’s article about Tommy constituted the worst of prejudice and even lashon hora. You presume to ascribe the very worst motives to a man you’ve never bothered to listen to.

Israel is poorly understood. Tommy has been fighting against Islamisation in the UK for so long that he always knew hatred of Israel, which often includes hatred of Jews, was a basic feature of the Islamic ideology he sees in Britain. Anti-Israel demonstrations, including expressions of support for terrorist organisations that deliberately target Israel’s Jewish citizens, are common on British streets. Expressions of support for Palestinians seem more often than not to be outright denials of Jewish Israel’s right to exist.

The Green Line doesn’t exist for Jew hating enemies of Israel: they want the entire Jewish state gone, Green Line or no. For Israelis, the Green Line is fading. It’s becoming irrelevant as we showed Tommy by driving across it too many times to count.

Tommy’s time in Israel confirmed to him that he is on the right side of a fight that will define Europe. On which side will British Jews line up? That remains to be seen.


Why did I tour Israel with Tommy Robinson? Nov 2016

Tommy Robinson wrap up visiting Israel on beach in Tel Aviv?—?Nov 2016

This post is a response to the this article which appeared in the Jewish Chronicle on November 24th.

You can read even more here at Gates of Vienna.

First published in Times of Israel.
Posted on 12/02/2016 10:30 AM by Brian of London
Friday, 2 December 2016
Save Us from Social Justice - TFF Episode 54

Janice Fiamengo explains how Canada's Social Justice Tribunals work on the principle that you can force people to respect others by punishing them over even trivial misunderstandings or honest expressions of opinion.

Posted on 12/02/2016 10:16 AM by David Solway
Friday, 2 December 2016
A Note on ‘Mainstream’

and the power of definition

by James Como

Recently Senator Schumer made a threat: unless President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee was in the Mainstream, the Democrats would oppose him; this when the President-Elect was urged to name someone in the tradition of Antonin Scalia, who, apparently, was not within that magic flow. 

Notice the four assumptions contained in the threat:  that  1/ there is a mainstream,  2/ all reasonable people recognize it as such,  3/ it is more nourishing to the commonweal than any other stream, and  4/ Schumer will define it for those who do not know it.  I suggest the time is ripe for rejecting the last three, as well as the first as normally understood.

The same assumptions, with the same recommendation, apply to the mass media of communication. There are the putative mainstream media, with the Times leading the current, and the . . . the what?  Fox News?  Breitbart?  The Daily Kos?  Rush?  Politico?  Rolling Stone?  But the Times is no more mainstream than the others I’ve named, its authority stemming from its consideration as the paper of record and its editorials as dispositive.  (The Wall Street Journal has more weekday readers.)  It’s rather like Daniel Boorstin’s definition of a celebrity as someone who is famous for being well-known.

In that light, our political struggle over the past five-plus decades (certainly since Goldwater’s presidential candidacy) has been, in part, over definitions, an ongoing attempt to establish a New Normal, ‘mainstream’, debt, GDP growth, or anything else: that has certainly been Obama’s intent. Thus the image of our political spectrum has shifted Left, but the on-the-ground reality very much less so and only selectively. Thus the surprise of so many pundits, Progressives, and professors: they bought into the new image of normalcy

And why not?  It is their imagecreation by definition (which Aristotle teaches is the first of the inventional topoi. (Invention here meaning the discovery of arguments, and topoi being those lines of thought that help us to think matters through and then to communicate the results.) 

Just so does an unborn child become merely a fetus (as with any species), then “a mass of cells” (even though no one has ever asked a pregnant woman how her fetus or cells are doing), as does same-sex union become ‘marriage’, and as does the previously unknown ‘alt-Right’ (both real and repulsive) enter our lexicon without an ‘alt-Left’ when clearly there is one, in the Green Party, Black Lives Matter and other race hustlers, Paul Krugman, Senator Warren, the flag-burners and -removers, and many of those who play identity politics.

C. S. Lewis has uncle Screwtape counsel his nephew Wormwood that a good start in winning a soul for “Our Father below” is the corruption of language. I believe exactly that has happened with ‘mainstream’ (and other concepts), and too often the supposed counter-cultural media have played the same word-game. Okay, so then call and raise: after all, isn’t the discernment of a new mainstream at the core of President Obama’s recent complaint about Fox News?  That it’s everywhere?  It’s time for the image to catch up with the reality and for the new mainstream to start the defining.  

In other words, if you believe that there is a mainstream in the first place, and you have half the population with you, and you have a ready-made lexical tool, then use it: say out loud that another Antonin Scalia would be precisely ‘mainstream’. 

And keep going from there.

Posted on 12/02/2016 8:50 AM by James Como
Friday, 2 December 2016
What kind of culture is this?

by Gary Fouse

This past week or so  I have watched the news reports about the fires raging in Israel with sadness and outrage. These are not accidental fires rather cases of arson. Suspects have been arrested, and it is pretty clear that these fires are the latest terror tactic of the Palestinians. Indeed, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are celebrating in their usual style. They heartily approve of these outrages.

Just as they heartily approve of other acts of terror against innocent Israeli citizens-not to mention acts of terror against the US, such as 9-11.

I am old enough to remember the late 1960s and 1970s, after the 1967 war launched against Israel by her Arab neighbors, a war won in 6 days by Israel. (To be accurate, Israel launched a preemptive strike as Arab armies were gathering on her borders.) I clearly recall the skyjackings carried out by Palestinian terrorists. I also recall the 1972 Munich Olympic terror attack that wiped out the entire Israeli team. I was living in Italy in 1985 when the Achille Lauro Italian cruise ship was boarded by Palestinian killers. An elderly American Jew named Leon Klinghoffer was shot and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by those savages.

It was the Palestinians who gave those outrages to the world. Unlike the Israelis and Jews they sought to murder en masse, Palestinians were contributing nothing else to the world in the way of inventions, arts, science, music, sports, or anything else. Just murder.

But then the Palestinians gave us suicide bombings, suicide belts and blowing up buses. That was the new tactic since skyjackings had become too difficult. Long security lines at airports, which we still endure today, had cut those to a minimum (notwithstanding 9-11. That was not conducted by Palestinians; they just celebrated.). Soon, Israelis had to fear boarding buses or going to a simple pizza parlor lest some Palestinian walk in with a bomb strapped against his or her waist. Mothers were now raising their children to be suicide bombers.

Naturally, the Israelis had an answer to that. They built a wall, not to keep their own citizens trapped inside a'la the Berlin wall, but to keep murderers out and protect Israeli citizens. It has been pretty effective. Yet, US college campuses have wailed in protest. How dare Israel hinder the travel of Palestinians? How dare they set up humiliating check points?

Of course, while all this was happening, the noble government of Gaza (otherwise known as Hamas) was periodically lobbing rockets into southern Israeli schools in places like Sderot. The Israelis responded militarily trying to attack the Hamas fighters while minimizing civilian deaths, an impossible task especially when you consider that Hamas shields their fighters by using civilians and their homes and schools from behind which they fight. Again, the world reacts in selective outrage against Israel.

Then there is the West Bank under the control of Mahmoud Abbas. This is the entity that US presidents expect Israel to negotiate a peace treaty with. All they do is educate their children that Jews are evil monsters via textbooks, music and cartoon shows that would make the old Nazi publisher and Gauleiter, Julius Streicher, and his Der Stuermer blush with envy. In addition, every once in a while, killers set forth to murder Israelis living in the disputed settlements. In one truly infamous case in 2011, two young Palestinians entered the home of the Fogel family in the settlement of Itimar and slit the throats of Ehud and Ruth Fogel and three of their children as they slept in their beds. Even their 3-month-old baby was murdered in its crib. And what was the reaction of the Palestinian population? They danced in the streets and passed out sweets-just as they did on 9-11. The killers were celebrated as heroes. What kind of culture is this?

Now the Palestinians have added a new facet to their celebrated culture: Forest fires and arson. And once again, the people cheer and celebrate the actions-not of pyromaniacs, but cold-blooded arsonists.

I am no expert on the origins and history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am not denying that Palestinians may have some valid talking points and grievances, Yet, when they embraced terrorism as their weapon, murdering innocent Israelis, Americans and others in pursuit of their goal, they lost my sympathy a long time ago. At this point in time, they have not demonstrated to me that they are worthy of running their own country. At this point an independent Palestinian state would be nothing more that a base for terror against Israel and any country that has friendly ties with the Jewish state.

Like the United States.

That is why I take issue with the  American college students and their faculty enablers who support the Palestinian cause. They damn Israel for trying to protect itself while totally ignoring the murderous culture of the Palestinians, a murderous culture of death that seeks to eliminate every last Jew from the Holy Land.

Posted on 12/02/2016 8:44 AM by Gary Fouse
Friday, 2 December 2016
Four in ten British Muslims want some aspect of Sharia Law enforced in UK
From the UK Express:
MORE than four in ten British Muslims want to see at least some aspects of Sharia Law in force in the UK, an opinion poll revealed last night.

Forty-three per cent of followers of the religion living in the country believed that parts of the Islamic legal system should replace British law while only 22 per cent opposed the idea.

Researchers also found "deeply worrying" levels of belief among British Muslims in conspiracy theories such as blaming the US government or “Jews" for the 9/11 terror attacks on America

The findings were revealed last night in one of the biggest surveys of opinion among Muslims ever carried out in the UK. Data from the polling firm ICM showed very similar views to the rest of the UK population on a range of key issues including the NHS, unemployment and immigration. 


Posted on 12/02/2016 5:13 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Thursday, 1 December 2016
Vicious Palestinian Politics

by Michael Curtis

The mills of democratic politics in Palestinian organizations grind slowly, if they ever grind at all. This was borne out once again at the 7th General Congress of the Fatah section of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) held in Ramallah, the capital of the West Bank on November 29, 2016, the anniversary of the day in 1947 when the UN General Assembly approved the Partition of Palestine. This was the first such conference since 2009. It was attended by 1400 delegates compared with 2355 in 2009.

The main function of the Congress was to elect the leader of Fatah, the Fatah Central Commitee and the Revolutionary Council. The main event was the reelection of 81 year old Mahmoud Abbas, said to be suffering from a heart problem, and having undergone cardiac catheterization, as chairman of Fatah. The stated term of office is five years , but it is unpredictable when it will actually end. The lack of adherance to rules and time restraints by Palestinian leaders is famiiar. Mr. Abbas is presently in the twelth year of his 4 year term as president of the Palestinian Authority, and appears ready to hold the post until destiny calls.

In the Congress in Ramallah, Abbas, not unexpectedly, was elected unanimously inspite of a possible challenge from his long time rival , the 55 year old Mohammed Dahlan, former leader of Fatah in the Gaza Strip, who is in exile in Abu Dhabi. Dahlan had been minister for Palestinian security for a short time in 2003 and had organized a paramilitary force in 2007.

However, no challenge took place. Abbas has been wary of a threat to his leadership and acted ruthlessly. He thus suspended key Dahlan supporters from Fatah, reduced the PA salaries of many others,and prevented many other Dahlan supporters from attending the Fatah conference.

At the Congress there was pointless talk about the successor to Abbas when he retires Interestingly, that retirement will not be in Palestine or Jordan,  but in Qatar, where Abbas has citizenship and where his two sons, who through connections have aquired considerable wealth, have investment firms.

Abbas's bitter rival,  Dahlan has had a chequered career, personal and political. In the Karni scandal of 1997 he was accused of diverting 40%  of taxes levied in Gaza to his own personal bank .Dahan fled the West Bank in 2014 after accusing Abbas of corruption .As a result  he was sentenced in abstentia to two years in prison.

The bitter power struggle continues. In a ceremony on November 10, 2016, the 12th anniversary of Arafat's death, Abbas in his remarks implied that Dahlan was behind Arafat's death in Paris. Two days later Dahlan replied.  In his version, it was Abbas who was a suspect, because Abbas was the only one who benefited from Arafat's death.

The power struggles in Palestinian politics make the contest between Presidential candidates in American politics look likely a friendly game of chess. The organizers of the Ramallah Congress using political muscle could have given Debbie Wasserman Schultz valuable lessons in her attempts to distort the Democratic party primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton. 

The bitter rivaly between Abbas and the ambitious Dahlan is highly personal, rather than based on issues on which their opinions are largely similar. This rivalry is only part of the other divisions among Palestinians: the bitter fight between Fatah and Hamas; the rival groups with Fatah; and the feud between the PLO and other groups, the Popular Front (PFLP) and the Democratic Front (DFLP) .  

Abbas has tried to reach agreement with Hamas, partly through the agreement signed in Cairo in 2011 for a joint goverment in the West Bank and Gaza. But this has been postponed , even though Abbas met Hamas leaders Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh in Qatar in October 2016.

Supporters of all sides in Palestinian politics claim they are  following the path of Yasser Arafat. That path was a devious one, but it bears some similarity with the road taken by Abbas concerning Russia.  Arafat had emerged as a leader of Fatah (Movement for the Liberation of Palestine), formed in Kuwait in 1959, and then as chairman in 1964 of the PLO created by the Arab League aided by the Soviet Union in 1964.

There is controversy over the origin of the PLO.The most dramatic, if exaggerated, explanation comes from Ion Pacepa, a former adviser to Nicolae Ceausescu, dictator of Communist Romania, and a general in the secret police of that country,who defected to the U.S. in July 1978. Pacepa's argument is that the Soviet Union proposed the creation of the PLO and decided on the main point of appeal, the liberation struggle of the "Palestinian people."

Indeed. around this time the Soviet Union was creating "liberation fronts" throughout the Third World, especially in Bolivia and Columbia. The Soviet influence is shown in the PLO Charter created on May 28, 1964, with a preamble , "We, the Palestnian Arab people," and Article 25 which calls for the liberation of its homeland in "liberational, organizational, political, and financial matters."

The first PLO Council with 422 representtives, in which the KGB had an influnce, approved the document. The first chair, Ahmad Shukeiry, only held the position for a few months after which he was replaced by Arafat, who was dependent on the Soviet Unon for military and economic assistance.

It is unclear the exact nature of Soviet influence in the creation of the PLO, but it is more than coincidental that Abbas studied in Moscow in the early 1980s, that he got his doctorate from Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, and published in 1984 his dissertation, The Other Side: the Secret Relationship between Nazism and Zionism. Abbas told the world that the Holocaust had been exaggerated, and that "Zionism" had fabricated the myth of six million killed.

According to some documents, revealed by another Soviet defector Vasili Mitrokhin, Abbas was a KGB agent in 1983.

The Obama administration has persisted in seeing Abbas and Fatah as a possible negotiating partner for peace with Israel. President Trump can benefit from the true nature of Fatah as illustrated by the rhetotic and ruthless power politics at the Ramallah Congress.   The most devastating comments were that Abbas is a political corpse, corrupt, tyrannical , who has lost political direction. The incoming Secretary of State in the Trump administration should act accordingly.

Posted on 12/01/2016 1:06 PM by Michael Curtis
Thursday, 1 December 2016
George Soros, Karl Popper, and Podsnap

by Hugh Fitzgerald

George Soros has just pledged $15 million to fight “hate crimes.” Who could object to this? Well, I could, and you could, if by “hate crimes” Soros means truthful statements about what Islamic texts — Qur’an and Hadith and Sira – contain. But those texts and teachings of Islam do represent a menace to all non-Muslims, and it would be folly not to recognize this. And I could object, and you could, if Soros means to exclude as “hate crimes” (or “hate speech” precedent to “hate crimes”) a Muslim quoting those exact same texts because, in his view, if made by a Believer, they cannot possibly be “hate speech.” For if they were, that would mean that the texts of Islam itself would have to be called into question, and that – according to the Defenders of the Faith such as George Soros – can simply never be. A Muslim reports, for example, that the Qur’an says that Muslims are the “best of peoples”(3:110) and non-Muslims the “most vile of creatures.”(98:6) This is both accurate and, for George Soros, not a “hate crime.” But when some non-Muslim reports that Muslims say that the Qur’an says that “Muslims are the best of peoples” and “non-Muslims the most vile of creatures,” George Soros and the Muslim groups he funds regard those statements as whipping up hatred against Muslims; that is, they constitute a “hate crime.” For Soros, what the Muslim quotes in such a case says hardly matters; Soros long ago made up his mind that these passages don’t matter or don’t exist or are being taken out of context or surely have to be interpreted differently, and in any case, who cares about such remarks except for those Islamophobes always trying to sow distrust and hate.

Soros has, through his Open Society Foundation, shown a deep interest in defending Muslims and in deflecting attention from Islam’s texts. His foundation has consistently given grants to organizations, such as the Muslim Advocates, that seek to water down anti-terrorist measures, and to constrain the effectiveness of domestic intelligence in monitoring likely terrorists, and has been responsible for forcing the NYPD to end some of its most effective programs, including its monitoring of mosques. After the Dec. 2, 2015 attack in San Bernardino, for example, the Open Society’s Muslim grantees did not express horror at the attack by a Muslim couple on their Infidel fellow workers, but rather, according to a hacked document, immediately “mobilized to counter anti-refugee and anti-Muslim immigration sentiment.” The policy agenda of the Open Society Foundation is to insist that the main source of “hate crimes” in the United States is a never clearly-defined “Islamophobia,” which vague term is used to describe and consign to the outer darkness all criticism of Islam, to suggest that Islam itself is always and everywhere beyond criticism, which – given the observable behavior of Muslims in the United States and all over the world – becomes more ludicrous every day. Can anyone with a straight face still maintain that all those who are made anxious, angry, fearful about Islam, because of what has happened in Paris and Nice, in Brussels and Amsterdam, in London and Madrid, in Moscow and Beslan, in Beijing and Bali, in New York and Washington and Boston, at Fort Hood and in Chattanooga and San Bernardino (you can fill up notebooks with the list of nearly 30,000 attacks by Muslim terrorists, following the texts of Islam, that have been committed since 9/11/2001) are merely hate-filled Islamophobes?

Soros has not listened to, much less heeded, the testimony of that growing number of ex-Muslims who actually grew up within Islam, and in the West found both the intellectual freedom and physical security (though that security is relative; most must live under constant guard for fear of their former coreligionists), to find their way out of Islam and have chosen to sacrifice their safety in order to alert the non-Muslim world about the teachings and texts of Islam. These ex-Muslims are particularly worrisome because they are thoroughly versed in what Islam teaches, cannot be bullied into backing down by claims they “don’t know what they are talking about,” and offer from the inside an authentic view of Islam and of Muslims, which may be unflattering, but also happens to be true. If Soros were truly interested in “reforming” Islam – assuming that such a difficult and doubtful undertaking might improve matters – then surely one would want to publicize and to promote Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Ibn Warraq, Magdi Allam and others like them. Soros has never been interested sin these witnesses; for him there are only victimized Muslims and Islamophobes. Yet these ex-Muslims are as valuable now as, decades ago, were defectors from the K.G.B. who alerted the West to the full menace of Soviet Communism.

When Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for example, writes that on September 11, 2001 she was horrified by the news of the attack on the World Trade Center, but not at all surprised, because she knew from her own Muslim upbringing of the intense hatred of Infidels to be found in Islam, does Hirsi Ali’s remark constitute “hate speech”? When Wafa Sultan or Nonie Darwish or Magdi Allam describe in similar terms the passages of murderous hatred toward non-Muslims to be found in the Qur’an and Hadith, and that they were constantly subjected to when they grew up in Muslim environments in Syria and Egypt, shouldn’t George Soros want to support them in their commitment to warning the West? Soros has taken his stand: he will do nothing to encourage the truthful study of Islamic texts, and will instead do everything he can to avoid having the American public be made aware of, for example, this telling — if oft-repeated — list of Qur’anic passages pertaining to Infidels:

Qur’an 2:191 “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”
Qur’an 3:21 “Muslims must not take the infidels as friends”
Qur’an 5:33 “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam”
Qur’an 8:12 “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran”
Qur’an 8:60 “Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels”
Qur’an 8:65 “The unbelievers are stupid, urge all Muslims to fight them”
Qur’an 9:5 “When the opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you find them”
Quran 9:123 “Make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood”
Qur’an 22:19 “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies”
Qur’an 47:4 “Do not hanker for peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them”

Soros does not want to acknowledge such passages. I suspect at this point nothing could induce him to read the Qur’an and Hadith. He doesn’t want to know for certain what he suspects he might find. He wants, rather, to live in a comfortable cocoon of high-minded ignorance, where he is flattered sycophantically by the recipients of his largesse, and can remain happily convinced that for some reason he can’t quite fathom, all over the world, Christians and Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, atheists and agnostics, are engaged in an effort to persecute defenseless Muslims in an orgy of Islamophobia. For Soros, there is only one way to bring about the heavenly kingdom, or some reasonable facsimile thereof, which is for non-Muslims to recognize, and reject, the “climate of fear” they have created for Muslims, a fear for which there is no discernible reason. Never mind the Muslim clerics who speak openly about deliberately leaching on Infidel societies, with Muslims helping themselves to a proleptic Jizyah both from the receipt of every possible welfare-state benefit they can get, and by property crimes, also seen as a kind of Jizyah, against Infidels. Never mind the skyrocketing statistics on Muslims committing sex crimes on non-Muslims (women, men, children of both sexes). Never mind those Muslims who speak openly of how they are using demography as a weapon of Jihad – outbreeding while battening on their helpless hosts, so that with each year their percentage of the population inexorably rises.

Here is Hirsi Ali in a 2007 interview in the London Standard:

Just like Nazism started with Hitler‘s vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate — a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to deathhomosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killedSharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism.” In this interview, she said, “Violence is inherent in Islam – it’s a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder.

Islam – not “Islamism” –is a cult that you can be born into, or join, but once in you can’t get out; the punishment for apostasy is death. It is both a fanatic and a fighting faith, where Infidels are likened to animals, women and homosexuals can be beaten or killed, and those who leave the faith killed for defecting from the Army of Islam. Could George Soros allow himself to recognize the simian similarities between Islam and the Nazism from which he just barely escaped? Does George Soros think that apostates are not killed, that women are not beaten (or killed) for sex outside marriage, that homosexuals are not killed simply for being homosexuals? Does he think the murderous depiction of Infidels, and especially of Jews (for being the firmest in their opposition to Muhammad) is simply made up?

And why does Soros promote campaigns that spread false Islamophobia on social media? There is so much of this already going around, these anti-Muslim “hate crimes” designed to elicit sympathy for Muslims that turn out to be hoaxes, that Soros need hardly bother. The latest example is the story about one Abdul Aziz Usmani, a 7-year-old whose father claimed he was repeatedly beaten up by fellow students on a school bus in Cary, North Carolina, though neither the bus driver nor any of the other students noticed anything awry, and furthermore, the boy bore no signs of any injury, nor reported any attack, until his father did. Liza Luten, a spokesman for the school, told BuzzFeed news: “[The principal] interviewed seven students sitting near this child, and none of the students, nor the bus driver, witnessed any type of altercation or incident.” When [the family] originally shared the information, they didn’t share any information about religion or race, and just that their child was bullied.

The police investigated, and concluded that it was a charge without merit, one more pretend-hate crime. Robert Spencer has also noted the case in New Jersey of a Muslim who was convicted of a murder that he had tried to depict as an “Islamophobic” attack, and another in California of a man convicted of killing his wife, an attack he tried to blame on “Islamophobia.” And then there was the woman who said she was called a terrorist and her cheek slashed in Manhattan, who later admitted she made up the story. If you click on each word here — CAIR and other Muslims have on many occasions not hesitated — you will have ten more examples of claimed anti-Muslim “hate-crimes” that turned out to be hoaxes. And tomorrow, or next week, there will be still more to add to the list.

Does George Soros allow himself to know anything about this long catalogue of “hate crimes” where there was no crime, or where the crime in question was indeed committed, but by Muslims? A moment’s thought would tell him that if he really cared about the reputation of Muslims, he would want to do whatever he could to put a stop to these false reportings. For when they are finally revealed (as so many of them have been), they only earn Muslims still more suspicion and contempt. But Soros will have none of that. He prefers simply to ignore the whole lengthening list of fabricated hate crimes, and instead, dwells in a phantasmagoric world where Muslims live in constant fear of attack. Nor is there convincing evidence of such fear. Instead of cowering, Muslims appear quite aggressive throughout the Western world in pushing their own agendas: demands for prayer rooms in schools and workplaces, insistence upon wearing hijabs that violate longstanding dress codes, prayer times that interrupt the work day schedule, rewriting of history in school textbooks — wherever they sense Infidel weakness, demands are made.

George Soros seems strangely unaffected by the rise of antisemitism in Europe. Though he escaped from the Nazis by the skin of his teeth, he appears unwilling to recognize the source of the new wave of antisemitism in Europe – the burgeoning population of Muslims. One wonders if he is aware of the description of the Jews in the Qur’an as the “descendants of apes and pigs,” the people who were most firm in their opposition to Muhammad, and who even were responsible — see the Sira — for poisoning Muhammad. Here is the conclusion to a 700-page treatise, Jews in the Qur’an and the Traditions, by Grand Sheik Tantawi, Sunni Islam’s leading cleric, and the head of Al-Azhar University in Cairo:

[The] Qur’an describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah, corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people’s wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness … only a minority of the Jews keep their word. … [A]ll Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims, the bad ones do not.

Descriptions of Jews by prominent Muslim clerics are quoted by Robert Spencer in an omnium-gatherum article on the persistence of antisemitism in Islam:

The grand sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the most respected cleric in the world among Sunni Muslims today, has called Jews “the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs.” Saudi sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudayyis, imam of the principal mosque in the holiest city in Islam, Mecca, said in a sermon that Jews are “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs.” Another Saudi sheikh, Ba’d bin Abdallah al-Ajameh al-Ghamidi, made the connection explicit: “The current behavior of the brothers of apes and pigs, their treachery, violation of agreements, and defiling of holy places … is connected with the deeds of their forefathers during the early period of Islam—which proves the great similarity between all the Jews living today and the Jews who lived at the dawn of Islam.

The steady rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Europe has been attributed, by European authorities, to Muslims who have taken to heart what the Qur’an and Hadith have to say about Jews. Why should we not believe that as the Muslim population grows in the United States, there will not be the same rise in hate crimes by Muslims against Jews here, too? Or should we believe, as some fondly do, that there is something unique about “American” Muslims – uniquely tolerant, as opposed to Muslims elsewhere in the world, even though all Muslims read the same Qur’an, the same Hadith, the same Sira? Doesn’t the less aggressive behavior, so far, of American Muslims reflect only the fact of lesser numbers, of their constituting 1% rather than 3% or 5% or 10% of the population?

It is too bad that George Soros, with his willingness to deploy millions to work his will, remains adamantine in his refusal to look at the evidence of Muslim “hate speech” that then gives rise to “hate crimes.” It is too bad that he has decided that it is Muslims who need to be protected from a potential wave of violence from “Islamophobes,” though there has been no such wave, not in North America, and not anywhere in the Western world. It is too bad that George Soros does not recognize that the charge of “Islamophobia” is a Muslim invention, designed to silence all criticism of Islam, and misleadingly characterizing as “irrational hatred” the criticism of Islam that is solidly based on a familiarity with the contents of the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira.

George Soros fancies himself more than merely a supremely enlightened Maecenas. He thinks of himself as a philosopher, keeper of the flame of the late Karl Popper who, like Soros, was of Jewish descent and, like Soros, escaped the Nazis in time. Popper’s most influential work for Soros was his “The Open Society and Its Enemies.” But whatever Soros learned from that work of political philosophy, he seems not to have taken to heart the single most celebrated remark of Popper, made in 1945, after the final defeat of the Nazis: “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” Soros may have learned, or thinks he learned, a great deal from Karl Popper,but he did not learn this. And because he is more than tolerant of the most intolerant and fanatical force now bestriding the earth, he has made himself one of the enemies of the “open society” that Popper championed.

But there is one personage whom Soros, in his willful blindness about Islam, does resemble. That is Dickens’ Mr. Podsnap:

…Mr Podsnap settled that whatever he put behind him he put out of existence. There was a dignified conclusiveness–not to add a grand convenience–in this way of getting rid of disagreeables which had done much towards establishing Mr Podsnap in his lofty place in Mr Podsnap’s satisfaction. ‘I don’t want to know about it; I don’t choose to discuss it; I don’t admit it!’ Mr Podsnap had even acquired a peculiar flourish of his right arm in often clearing the world of its most difficult problems, by sweeping them behind him (and consequently sheer away) with those words and a flushed face. For they affronted him.

“I don’t want to know about it; I don’t choose to discuss it; I don’t admit it” – that is George Soros, on Islam. He fancies himself a disciple of Karl Popper. But when it comes to “clearing the world of its most difficult problems,” he turns out to be, though he would be outraged at the suggestion, merely, and maddeningly, an avatar of Mr. Podsnap.

First published in Jihad Watch.

Posted on 12/01/2016 10:54 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 1 December 2016
Court won't listen to Muslim woman's evidence unless she removes veil

From The Australian and the Daily Telegraph (of Australia)

A judge has refused to hear evidence from a Muslim woman, the wife of a Islamic extremist, because she refused to remove her veil in court.

Moutia Elzahed, one of two women married to convicted criminal and Islamic extremist Hamdi Alqudsi, is suing the police alleging they punched her and called her a “bitch” during the Operation Appleby terrorism raids at her Revesby home on September 18, 2014. (and) is seeking compensation for “assault and battery, wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and intimidation”.

...NSW District Court Judge Audrey Balla would not allow her to take the stand while she was wearing her veil. But she still refused to take it off.

Ms Elzahed’s lawyer Clive Evatt argued his client was not allowed to show her face to any man outside her family for religious reasons.

Judge Balla gave Ms Elzahed the option to have the court closed while she gave evidence or to do so in another room, or via video link. Mr Evatt then argued that the options were not suitable because male legal counsels would still be able to see Ms Elzahed’s face.

Ms Elzahed also ­refused to stand for Judge Balla when the judicial officer entered and exited the court.

Ms Elzahed has accused police of punching her during the September 2014 dawn raid and

It is understood Ms Elzahed told reporters outside court that being told she couldn’t give evidence was “unfair”.

... she failed to turn up to the fourth day of the hearing this morning. Her lawyer Zali Burrows declined to say why Ms Elzahed did not appear.

She is joined in the lawsuit by her husband Hamdi Alqudsi and her sons Hamza George, 17, and Abdulla George, 17. Today, two NSW police officers who handcuffed Ms Elzahed’s teenage sons during a terrorism raid on their Sydney home have denied slamming either of the boys into a cupboard and window and calling them terrorists, a court has heard. Sen Cons Young said he only used “enough force to put the handcuffs on” one of the boys, who was struggling and resisting.

Since the raid Alqudsi has been convicted of helping seven men travel to Syria to fight with Islamist rebels in the civil war. He was jailed for eight years with a non-parole period of six years.

Posted on 12/01/2016 5:48 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwaxe
Thursday, 1 December 2016
'Isis fanatics planned to feed poisoned ice-cream to kindergarten kids before bombing nursery'

Alan Hall writes in the Evening Standard:

An alleged Islamic State plot to feed poisoned ice cream to kindergarten children before detonating a bomb in their nursery car park has been revealed in Germany.

The plan reportedly came to light during hearings relating to the case of two IS fanatics accused of blowing up a Sikh temple in the industrial city of Essen during wedding celebrations.

Mohammed O., 17, one of the alleged temple bombers who carried out the assault in April which wounded four people, planned to sell the toxic ices before blowing himself up in the midst of the children.

Yusuf T., 17, was accused of being the leader of the so-called Temple bomber group. The young Salafists first allegedly formed their murder gang on Whatsapp and built bombs from ingredients ordered from online retailer Amazon.

When they were captured after the bombing a letter that Mohammed O. had written to Yusuf T. while he was in detention was intercepted by guards, a court heard. On it he posed the question: “May one kill targetted children?”

The letter allegedly went on to say: “I work as an ice cream man with my ice cream van and sell to many children.  May I, following Sharia law, use arsenic or warfarin, or better still strychnine, to kill children?”

Then the final question was put to his leader: “Can I make Istis hadi Amaliya (suicide) in the kindergarten too?”

The court was told that he also suggested in the two page letter written on A4 paper if it might also be possible to crash the van into the kindergarten. He further asked if it was permissible for him to “rape the girls of the enemies of the Prophet Muhammad,” it is claimed.

He allegedly urged Yusuf T. secretly to obtain a mobile phone so that he could make phone calls to plot the outrage. Investigators admitted at the trial in Essen that phone numbers of IS sympathisers were later found on a device owned by T.

Yusuf T’s defender Burkhard Bahri said: “My client suffered a deep impression in pre-trial detention and has renounced the Salafist scene. He wants to have nothing more to do with it and will therefore  testify fully in court.”

Posted on 12/01/2016 5:26 AM by Rebecca Bynum