It attributed the rise to the levels of migration in 2015 and 2016, plus Muslims as a whole having a higher birth rate and lower average age to other Europeans. As of 2016, the UK's share of Muslims was recorded as 6.3 per cent, compared to the European total of 4.9 per cent. An inflation to 17.2 per cent in the UK, the highest projected increase, would see the number of Muslims in Britain triple.
The 30 countries it covered include the 28 European Union members, plus Norway and Switzerland. Not all countries would be affected evenly by future immigration, according to the Pew report.
In the high migration scenario, Germany and Sweden would have the biggest increases because both countries took in the most asylum-seekers during the height of the refugee crisis two years ago.
While Muslims made up 6 per cent of Germany's population last year, their proportion would go up to 20 percent by 2050.
Sweden's Muslims, who were at 8 per cent in 2016, would account for 31 per cent of the population in that same scenario.
Meanwhile, some countries that had comparatively few Muslim residents in 2016 would continue to have few by 2050 in all three scenarios.
The young faces of Islamic extremism in Australia: Somali man, 20, accused of plotting ISIS-inspired New Year's massacre 'boasted about his friendship with Curtis Cheng's 15-year-old killer'
As my good friend and colleague Christina put it yesterday"An Australian Muslim with Somalian parents". Rather, "An Australia-born Muslim with immigrant Muslim parents".
A young Somali-Australian accused of plotting an ISIS-inspired New Year's Eve attack on Melbourne was reportedly targeted by ASIO because of his links to a radicalised 15-year-old boy who killed Curtis Cheng. Ali Khalif Shire Ali was dramatically arrested on Monday and charged with trying to obtain a semi-automatic rifle to gun down revellers in Federation Square.
The 20-year-old was well-connected to Australian jihadist circles including multiple other terror suspects and extremist preacher Junaid Thorne. Ali was also friends with Farhad Jabar, 15, who shot dead NSW police accountant Curtis Cheng outside the police centre in Parramatta in 2015.
...in May 2016, Ali was one of several Muslims led by Junaid Thorne who refused to stand for a magistrate saying they 'stand for no one but Allah'. The hearing was for five men accused of trying to flee Australia by boat to fight with terrorists overseas.
According to the Daily Telegraph, Ali is also believed to be friends with the son of convicted Islamic State terrorist Abdul Nacer Benbrika, as well as having links to the friends of teen terrorist Numan Haider.
Haider was killed with a single shot to the head after pulling a knife from his jacket and started stabbing two counter-terrorist police officers in a Melbourne station.
On Tuesday, Ali was dramatically arrested by counter-terrorism police in tactical gear in front of shocked onlookers outside a restaurant on a busy Melbourne street.
Police allege Ali tried to obtain an automatic rifle to carry out the horrific act, inspired by radical Islamist propaganda produced by terrorist group al-Qaeda. The 'ISIS sympathiser' did not enter a bail when he appeared briefly in Melbourne Magistrates Court on Tuesday.
Ali, who reportedly no longer has a formal name, was described by his boss at a local computer business as 'a very quiet guy'.
'It's very sad, it's a shock,' Warsame Hassan told the Herald Sun. 'If I had (noticed suspicious behaviour) then I would have told the police.' The business has been raided and the computer Ali used has been seized by police.
It is believe they had been monitoring Ali for months, but his alleged radicalism has increased over time and police believe he was seeking out obtaining an automatic weapon.
He had recently dropped out of Swinburne University in Hawthorn, and was a regular visitor at the Virgin Mary mosque near his family home in Melbourne's west. Members of the mosque described Ali's family as good members of the community.
The practising Muslim was born in Australia, is an Australian citizen and his parents were from Somalia, Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton said on Tuesday. 'The male is one of our high-risk persons of interest. We have been monitoring him for a very lengthy period of time,' he told reporters on Tuesday.
Counter-terror police make 'significant' arrests as alleged plot is foiled
The arrests, in London and Birmingham were reported in the press this morning, but this, in the Guardian, is the first report i have seen that confirms it to be Islamic terrorism.
Counter-terrorism officials believe they have foiled another plot to attack the UK with two men arrested by armed police and investigations continuing on Wednesday.
The arrests, described as “significant”, took place on Tuesday afternoon, the first in north London and the second in Birmingham. The alleged plot is believed to have been inspired by Islamic State propaganda and one of the more serious seen this year, investigators believe.
Police chiefs assessed that armed officers were needed to make the arrests, which were the result of a decision by counter-terrorism police and MI5, the domestic security agency, after a joint operation.
The two men, aged 21 and 20, were arrested on suspicion of being involved in the commission, preparation and instigation of terrorism contrary to section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000. They are in custody and being questioned, and searches are under way in London and Birmingham.
Police gave few details about the arrests, which were made by officers from the Metropolitan police’s counter-terrorism command, firearms officers and the counter-terrorism unit covering the West Midlands.
The Met said: “The officers arrested a 20-year-old man in north London and a 21-year-old man in south-east Birmingham at approximately 14.50hrs and 16.30hrs respectively on Tuesday 28 November. Both are being detained in custody under the Terrorism Act at a south-east London police station. Searches at addresses in south-east Birmingham and north London are ongoing.”
A BBC interview with two young single mothers takes for granted that society is to blame for their plight.
by Theodore Dalrymple
Recently, I had the painful experience of watching the BBC television evening news. I avoid television as much as possible, but I was in a friend’s house, and as it was part of his daily ritual to watch the news, I could not very well, as a guest, refuse to watch.
An item about halfway through the program spotlighted the increase in homelessness in Britain. Strictly speaking, this was not really news, since the increase could hardly have occurred overnight, or indeed over a very short period; and, of course, the item turned out to be opinion masquerading as information. Its tendentiousness was obvious.
The story largely consisted of interviews with two homeless single mothers of young children. They were temporarily housed in what seemed to be an old industrial and office block, converted into tiny living spaces, almost like cubicles. No one, I think, would have found it pleasant to live there.
The item drew attention to the fact that the owner of the block was making a very good income from the tenants who, the BBC told us, were each paying hundreds of pounds a week to live there. This was a very strange—and dishonest—way of putting it, since it was obviously not the homeless who were paying to live there, but the taxpayers who were paying for them to do so.
The two young mothers spoke of the difficulty of living in such a confined space, with so few appliances. One complained that she had only a microwave oven to cook with, a good example of the rhetorical device of suggestio falsi: in this case, had it not been for the injustice that forced her to live in this fashion, she would have been cooking healthful and well-balanced meals. Suffice it to say that surveys of eating habits in Britain suggest no such thing.
The two mothers, both quite young, complained bitterly of their living conditions; what struck me most was that the interviewer did not think to ask (or, if he did, it was rigorously edited out) how the situation in which they found themselves had arisen in the first place. It is possible, though unlikely, that the two young women had contributed absolutely nothing to their own misfortunes by, for example, making unwise decisions. It is possible, though unlikely, that they had no relatives in a position to help them, and that for them the state was the only conceivable source of social solidarity and support. But in any case, these matters did not arise; to have asked such questions would have been to blame the victims.
While it is perfectly true that no child should be brought up in such degraded and degrading circumstances, at least not nowadays, the blame for it was placed entirely on society, meaning the state and the taxpayers. The only solution offered was for the state to be more generous towards unfortunates such as the two young mothers. That this turned children into de facto tools of extortion, and that it made everyone responsible for the welfare of children except their parents, apparently did not occur to the producers of the news story. They passed on to other subjects, secure in the glow off their own sanctity.
We need to recover distinctions, when it comes to sexual misconduct.
by Conrad Black
The practice of instant, fierce, and quickly passing controversy seemed to come upon this country, not altogether coincidentally, with the rise of Donald Trump. The Billy Bush tape was clearly timed and aimed to destroy his candidacy, and in the two days between its release and the second presidential debate, Reince Priebus, then party chairman, virtually checked out, Speaker Paul Ryan disinvited Trump from a joint event in Wisconsin, and vice-presidential nominee Mike Pence went silent. Numerous senators and congressmen renounced their support for his candidacy, including current senators Crapo, Fischer, Gardner, McCain, Portman, and Thune. But Trump held an extended press conference with three women who claimed to have been sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton, and another whose alleged rapist was acquitted by the legal talents of counselor Hillary Clinton. Trump apologized for what he had said eleven years before. And he emphasized that a tasteless and inappropriate comment that he regretted was much less offensive than actual physical assaults on women as were alleged against Bill Clinton. He counter-attacked both Clintons, held his own in the debate, and the Republican Party creaked back, jittery but supporting the nominee. It was an immense controversy but it had nothing to do with being president; it didn’t work as a knock-out punch and passed quickly.
Once he was installed in office, there were the apparent crises of the presidency, all based on the theory that Trump was self-evidently illegitimate; he had to be, because he attacked all factions of both parties and the entire political system apart from the Constitution. There thus began the crowded sequence of destabilizing protests, each stirring the anti-Trump media to new paroxysms of moral fury designed to prevent the new president from governing. There were the “pussycats,” protesting misogyny (a sentiment Trump has never expressed, though he has been fairly raunchy at times). Teeming masses of actresses and other feminists marched impotently in nearly 200 locations in the world — supported, from Perth, Australia, by Bruce Springsteen — proclaiming “the Resistance.” There was nothing to protest or resist, and the rage evaporated.
The temporary block on travel to the United States from six countries led to hasty judge-shopping on the flaky West Coast bench to find a few federal judges who would purport to deny the president his statutory right and duty to control the borders. The argument was that it was a religious ban, and that even Yemenis and Iranians somehow had the right not to be discriminated against at their point of origin if they chose to come to the U.S. Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer purported to be weeping, in unison with the Statue of Liberty. There were demonstrations in many places and terrible slowdowns at airports, rioting in several places, including at the Berkeley campus, with extensive vandalism. The president did not take the bait and ignore the silly local judicial rulings, but instead imposed the controls at point of entry and then rejigged his order to include a number of non-Islamic countries, including Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela. The issue has gone away.
There was unfounded alarm that the president had not reaffirmed Article Five of the NATO treaty (an attack upon one is an attack upon all). In August came the Charlottesville riot, where Mayor Signer and Governor McAuliffe, pillars of the Resistance, ensured that the police would not thoroughly separate the two factions, and what began as a disagreement about whether to remove a statue of General Robert E. Lee became a confrontation between Nazis and Klansmen on one hand, against, on the other, Antifa and the militants of Black Lives Matter (who had killed eight policemen and wounded twelve in Dallas and Baton Rouge in July 2016). In condemning both sides, and saying there had been some good people among those who wished to retain Lee’s statue, the president was ferociously panned in the anti-Trump media for implicit racism, another unfounded charge. There was a brief frenzy of tearing down and removing Civil War statues in the South, ludicrous ceremonies of young adults kicking and spitting on felled effigies of Confederate soldiers, and so forth, and then, like a fever, this, too, passed. There have been many other such brief crazes.
Obviously, issues of the sexual harassment of women, especially juveniles and particularly if any aggressive physical contact is involved, are a subject that will not, and should not, suddenly vanish. But aspects of the current controversy are nonsense. The latest outburst of these episodes began with the arraignment of Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein by the New York Times and The New Yorker. Their research appeared to be thorough and the film community was not surprised by the accusations, but there has been no due process whatever as Weinstein has been torn down, disgraced, and stigmatized. (His initial defense, that he has always supported the Left politically, revealed its hypocrisy and confirmed that the Clinton defense of attacking “bimbos” from trailer parks has magnified the harassment problem.)
Then came Roy Moore, with, like the Billy Bush tape with Donald Trump, every indication of a political hit job by the Washington Post. (The Bush tape was from NBC but released by the Post.) The Post brought forward a very plausible account of a tactile exploration, with no removal of clothes, by Moore 38 years ago, of a then 14-year old girl. Moore vehemently denies it. Leigh Corfman, the wronged woman, confirms that the Post sought her out, asked her to make her recollections of the incident public, and met her condition that others come forward also. The Post managed to recruit a number of other women who made somewhat similar claims though without the underage aspect, and Gloria Allred, the inevitable champion of all female plaintiffs against male misbehavior, subsequently brought forward another accuser. This isn’t proof; it was 38 years ago; and there have been no credible complaints about Moore since.
Minnesota liberal Democrat Al Franken has been accused of harassment of a radio personality and former model (an imposed kiss and a photograph of him appearing to touch her breasts while she was asleep on an airplane), in 2006. I wouldn’t vote for either Moore or Franken, for diametrically different reasons, but I don’t think on evidence adduced to date that either has disqualified himself from serving in the U.S. Senate (although I have always believed that Franken stole his original election from Norm Coleman). When it comes to seekers for public office, I do not accept the Mitt Romney distinction between notional probabilities concerning conflicting versions of events and proof beyond doubt for a crime (a standard that is not observed in the U.S criminal-justice system in any case, because of the corruption of the plea-bargain system). Nor can I join in Peggy Noonan’s celebration of the end of the “He said–she said” era. If we get into a regime of denunciation based on subjective probabilities, any man can be forced out of public life by millions of women.
In these two cases, even if the accused men did what has been alleged, if that is all they did of this kind of activity, they are not morally disqualified. If Moore has been an upright, sexually unoffending man for 38 years (during which time he has often been an election candidate), his alleged conduct with Ms. Corfman, though outrageous, was not an assault and is not really relevant now; and his denial is not completely incredible. Franken has not admitted the allegations against him, but has apologized, and the photo is not out of character: It is absurd and not amusing, but what is claimed should not force him out of the Senate. (Nor can the instant dismissal of Charlie Rose by CBS and PBS be justified. His recollections are different from those of the complainants and no one seems to be claiming an assault.)
Women should not be afraid to complain if they have been genuinely subjected to harassment.
It is good that women should not be afraid to complain if they have been genuinely subjected to harassment (an offense that will require much more careful definition), so that men know that improprieties will, at the least, lead to severe embarrassment (as Moore and Franken are going through). But men (and women) have a right to be tasteless, stupid, and offensive without having their careers abruptly terminated with no deliberation or mercy. Moore can stay as a candidate (and the idea of excluding him from the Senate if he is elected is bunk), and Franken can remain. And I would always be happy to see Charlie Rose again, personally or on television, regardless of whether he disported himself before individual female staff au naturel, as Mark Steyn said last week, “like Big Bird.” Official Democratic flimflam about the venerable Representative Conyers is the first sign that this craze is passing; stealing a kiss might be disgusting in some cases, but it isn’t rape, and America’s sex life can’t be run by the Red Queen.
Indian politician offers $1.5M for beheading of Bollywood star over Hindu queen, Muslim ruler romance film
When Hindus imitate Muslims - shame on them. Fox News:
Deepika Padukone, right, and director Sanjay Leela Bhansali attend the opening of the 13th annual Marrakech International Film Festival. (Reuters)
A member of India's Hindu nationalist ruling party offered a $1.5 million bounty Sunday for anyone who beheads the lead actress and the director of a yet-to-be released Bollywood film that's sparked controversy for depicting a romance between a Hindu queen and Muslim ruler.
The film "Padmavati" was set to be in theaters on Dec. 1 and has caused a firestorm over its alleged handling of the relationship.
Suraj Pal Amu, a Bharatiya Janata Party leader from the northern state of Haryana, offered the bounty against actress Deepika Padukone and filmmaker Sanjay Leela Bhansali.The film's producers postponed the release of the movie the same day.
Speaking at a public rally, Amu also said the film would not be allowed to be released at all, local media reported.
The movie "Padmavati" is based on a 16th century Sufi epic poem, "Padmavat," a fictional account of a brave and beautiful Rajput queen who chose to kill herself rather than be captured by the Muslim sultan of Delhi, Allaudin Khilji. Over the centuries, the tale has come to be seen as history, even though there is little historical evidence to support it.
Padukone plays the role in the film of Padmini, the legendary queen who committed "jauhar," the medieval Rajput practice in which women of royal households walked into funeral fires to embrace death over the dishonor of being taken captive.
The film has been in trouble since the beginning of the year, with fringe groups in the western state of Rajasthan attacking the film's set, threatening to burn down theaters that show it and even physically attacking Bhansali in January.
Most of the anger at the film appears to stem from allegations that Bhansali distorted history by filming a romantic dream sequence between the film's main protagonists. Bhansali has denied the allegations.
Earlier this month, the head of the Rajput Karni Sena in Rajasthan said Padukone should have her nose cut — a symbol of public humiliation — for being part of a film that allegedly insulted the famed queen.
On Monday, local government officials vowed to take "stringent action" against those threatening Padukone and others involved in the movie, The Indian Express reported.
India's 1.3 billion-strong democracy is the largest in the world, but despite significant economic progress over the last few decades its politics are held hostage by a complex mix of religion and caste. Books and movies have found themselves at the receiving end of threats of violence and bans because they either offend one religious or caste group, or are deemed offensive to Indian culture in general...
In 1969, I received my doctoral degree from the New School. In those days, few did. The expectations, the standards, were notoriously high.
Founded by John Dewey and Thorstein Veblen, The New School hosted an eminent American and European expatriate professoriate that included Franz Boas, W.E.B. Du Bois, Hans Jonas, Maynard Keynes, Margaret Mead, Erwin Piscator, and, in my field (psychology), Karen Horney and Erich Fromm—and my most beloved professors: Nathan Brody, Mary Henle, Ausma Rabe, Robert Terwilliger, and Bernard Weitzman.
And now, I would like to return my degree—but the New School I once knew and respected no longer exists. Yes, many of the professors are still “distinguished”—they have all the right publishers and prizes—and yet, what they utterly lack is even the speck of moral imagination required to refrain from giving their imprimatur to a rather rough bunch of Jew-haters.
I am talking about the Creative Publishing and Critical Journalism faculty who have officially invited the infamous Linda Sarsour and Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace to discuss Anti-Semitism, aka Judeophobia, in which they hope to continue their work of reading Jews out of progressive movements and making them targets for hate.
James Miller directs this program, assisted by Associate Director Rachel Rosenfeld. Robert Boyers, Juliette Cezzar, Mark Greif, Noah Isenberg, Melissa Monroe, Jed Perl, and Hugh Raffles all teach for this program. They are professors, not unlettered, illiterate, grassroots activists. Eighty-five years after Adolf Hitler fired Jewish professors from German universities and burned and banned Jewish books, the academics are leading the pack against Israel, Jews, intellectual diversity, and truth. Only such academics could have invited Sarsour and Vilkomerson to speak on campus, to make a mockery of the very real hate that threatens actual, live Jews, whether in Charlottesville or in Paris or in Tel Aviv.
The description of the panel tells us: “Antisemitism is harmful and real. But when Antisemitism is redefined as criticism of Israel, critics of Israeli policy become accused and targeted more than the growing far-right. Join us for a discussion on how to combat Antisemitism today.”
More targeted than the far-right? Really? Poor babies. Words almost fail me given their self-serving bid for victim status even as they themselves are the aggressors who maliciously conflate anti-Semitism, which they practice, with “criticism of Israel,” as if the all-powerful Jewish Lobby is now threatening to shut down even the most innocent “criticism” of its actions. The canard is so transparent that it’s amazing to think that educated people believe it. But being educated has never proved to be a bar against being anti-Semitic, or being a camp follower or appeaser of haters.
The non-Muslim panelists claim that, like Muslims, they, too, are being persecuted in America, although the statistics assure us that the rise in Jew-hatred/anti-Semitism is far more significant (up 67 percent in 2017). While it’s important for Jew-haters to voice their hatred at the New School, under the guise of discussing “anti-Semitism”—welcome, David Duke, to the discussion of racism, and right this way, Harvey Weinstein, to the panel on rape—it is also important never to discuss the crimes against women perpetrated by the denizens of Muslim societies who are steeped in medieval bigotry and hatred of the other. Yes, the fear of collective punishment, white guilt over the historical evils of slavery in America, and the conflation of Arabs with discrimination against African-Americans in today’s society has led to a comprehensive chilling of speech and the kind of muddled, inflammatory thinking that appears to explain how the New School got to where it is today.
It is ironic: Even as charges of “appropriation” are leveled at men who write about women, whites who write about non-whites, non-gays who write about gays—that the single exception is that of allowing a non-Jew like Sarsour to actually hold forth in an academic setting as an “expert” on a subject about which she knows absolutely nothing.
The New School panel is political theater, meant to intimidate, appease, and entertain, not to educate.
The New School panel is political theater, meant to intimidate, appease, and entertain, not to educate. It is possible because Jew-hatred is in fashion on the left these days, and because academics are in denial about Islamist violence, whether it targets Jews, women, gays, or other minorities. Therefore, they seek to appease such violence by siding with it against permissible scapegoats, beginning with the Jews and Israel. Academics who should have more-nuanced views of geopolitical conflicts instead view the jihadi aggressors as “victims” and their true victims, including civilians, as guilty perpetrators. Those presumably most dedicated to truth-finding and truth-telling are repressing and perverting the truth and indoctrinating students to do likewise.
Haymarket Books is named after the 1886 Chicago Square incident in which workers demonstrated for an eight-hour workday. A bomb exploded, police officers were killed, anarchists were tried, and anarchists were hung. The bomber was never found. Haymarket publishes Ali Abunimah (Electronic Intifada); Omar Barghouti (the Qatari-born, Egypt-reared, educated-in-America professor who teaches at Tel Aviv University—and who is also the founder of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel and the co-founder of the BDS campaign); Angela Y. Davis (Communist, black nationalist, alleged feminist icon); Noam Chomsky (far left Anti-Zionist); Ilan Pappe (Israeli Jewish anti-Zionist); the late Howard Zinn, leftist historian and author of A People’s History of American Empire—as well as Leon Trotsky, Alexandra Kollantai, and Rosa Luxembourg. Once, long, long ago, I was quite fond of these last three.
Times change, thinking people ought to change with them, but that is rarely the case. The phrase “one-sided” does not do justice to Haymarket’s lineup of books. But, hey, it’s a free country.
Jacobin Magazine? Lauded by Chomsky and Chris Hayes, they describe themselves as “a leading voice of the American left.” Now, who were the Jacobins? In 1789, after the French Revolution, which was a much romanticized but relentlessly bloody uprising, the Jacobins, in alliance with Robespierre, were the most radical and violent of the groups. They instituted the Terror of 1793-1794.
The New School panel takes place tomorrow night, Nov. 28, at 7:30 p.m. It is also being live-streamed via Facebook at Jacobin Magazine.
Perhaps the New School has learned the hard way that it is better to appease the foxes. In 1997, the New School allowed itself to be ground right down into a weeks-long standstill because one professor of “Caribbean descent,” M. Jacqui Alexander, whose résumé was very thin, played the race card to protest the fact that she had not been granted tenure. Thereafter, this same professor took her show on the road to other universities (or so I’ve been told), where she repeated her performance. Apparently, she is now emeritus at the Women’s and Gender Studies Institute at Canada’s University of Toronto.
I knew nothing about this until last year when a Jew, who was caught up in that fracas, called me, and whom I then interviewed. He was so traumatized by the overt and underlying anti-Semitism of the aggressive and shaming mob that conducted the sit-in and hunger fast that he dropped out of graduate school and never again found his footing in the academic world. Today’s mobs form on social media rather than it the streets, but their effects on people’s lives can be every bit as profound.
Here’s the story, as reported in 1997, in Lingua Franca by Eyal Press, titled “Nightmare on Twelfth Street.” For three weeks, a “mobilization” of 50 students held various administrators “hostage,” “swarmed and jeered” at them and demanded that the New School “drastically revise their curriculum and minority hiring policies.” Students blanketed the school facade with signs bearing slogans like “RACIST, SEXIST, ANTI-GAY, NEW SCHOOL POLITICS GO AWAY!”
And then things really turned “ugly.” They demonstrated against an exhibit of Holocaust photography that took place during Black History Month. They instituted “die-ins” that blocked colleagues and students. They accused the New School of “police-state measures” and stayed on a hunger strike for 19 days, “huddled in blankets.” They held signs aloft that read: “WHITE PROFESSORS, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? THE HUNGER STRIKE IMPLICATES YOU!”
Alexander’s failure to receive “immediate tenure” triggered the demand for the radical revision of minority hiring policies. In the past, Judith Friedlander, dean of the graduate faculty, had stated that “We’re not going to make mediocre appointments, be they black or white.” Although the New School now promised to bring “five scholars of color to the graduate faculty within the next three years,” that was not what the mobilization wanted, either. They would not rest until Alexander received tenure now.
According to Press, Alexander’s critics noted that she had published no books of her own; had penned several articles and co-edited two volumes of essays. Nevertheless, her supporters claimed that she dealt with “marginalized” subjects. The titles of some of her articles were: “Erotic Autonomy as a Politics of Decolonization: An Anatomy of Feminist and State Practice in the Bahamas Tourist Economy” and “Not Just (Any) Body Can Be a Citizen: The Politics of Law, Sexuality, and Post-Coloniality in Trinidad and Tobago and in the Bahamas.”
Three different departments (political science, sociology, and anthropology) each voted against recommending Alexander for tenure. New School Faculty of Color (a phrase that must be capitalized), as well as students of color, began to leave the mobilization. Increasingly, it had become a cell, a cult, irrational, out of control, frighteningly angry. According to press, “despite the group’s identity-based rhetoric and practice, many of the mobilization’s own members happen to be white, while many of its critics are not.”
Finally, at a forum, one professor stood up to Alexander and stated that her “record of academic publication is indefensibly weak.” He was immediately attacked as a “racist.” When he was confronted by Alexander, who asked him what gave him the right to judge her work, he replied: “I’ve read your work.”
That professor’s name was James Miller—perhaps the same James Miller, apparently, who has now invited Linda Sarsour and Rebecca Vilkomerson into the henhouse. Perhaps he has had second thoughts about the wisdom of making himself a target for nutcases. Perhaps he does not view Jew-hatred as a form of “racism.” Most professors don’t; most textbooks on prejudice fail to include it.
The “Zioness Movement” has launched a petition at Change.org for signatures in a letter to New School President David E. Van Zandt. They note:
This panel appears to conflate legitimate criticism of Israel—like legitimate criticism of any other state—with the belief that Israel should not exist as a state and should be replaced. … These panelists actively work to prevent Zionists from engaging on the left, despite Israel’s leftist roots. Lina Morales has publicly posted on social media that she aims to “drive a wedge between Zionists and the left, between Zionists and the queer community, between Zionists and poc communities.” Rebecca Vilkomerson has said JVP’s role is to drive a wedge between Judaism and Zionism. Linda Sarsour has said “nothing is creepier than Zionism,” and declared that Zionists cannot be feminists.
Will Jews and our friends show up en masse at the New School on Nov. 28 with signs and numbers (if not wonders) to confront the Jew-haters all dressed up as respectable academics?
Setting the record straight on Jason Reza Jorjani’s “The Coming Persian War”
by Hossein Khorram
I briefly met Jason Reza Jorjani at the Asian Ball during the inaugural festivities on January 20, 2017. He was cordial and seemed reasonable, but as with many people one meets briefly at social functions, I knew nothing about him, his writings or his political activities.
He has since written a piece on his blog entitled, “The Coming Persian War” which contains some strange allegations concerning AMCD’s advisor, Dr. Walid Phares, who was also at the Asian ball that night and met Jorjani briefly after he shook his hand. Dr. Phares is a well-respected Middle East scholar who has written many books on the region and on Iran in particular. He has had no formal meeting the Jorjani as is implied in his article. I was there. Dr. Phares shook hundreds of hands at several balls throughout the evening.
Jorjani writes, “I met Walid Phares and discussed Iran policy with him. Later on, I wrote him a very substantive letter warning the Trump Administration not to go down the Pro-Saudi path that it has since chosen to pursue with respect to regime change in Iran.”
Dr. Phares did not have any meeting with Jorjani beyond this brief encounter, while he was greeting many other participants in the Asian Ball. He did not give Jorjani his contact information and has not received any letter from him.
“When asked about the nature of the new Iran policy that the President was about to announce, Phares explained, ‘The Pasdaran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, will be under the focus of [i.e. in the crosshairs of] our allies, and speaking of our allies, remember the President went to Riyadh. He met with 50 Arab and Muslim leaders. This is way different from what was the situation in the ‘90s. He has a much larger coalition. Even if the Europeans are going to be criticizing his position, he has a much larger bloc in the region to work with.’ The Fox News anchor fails to ask Phares why he is jumping all the way back to the 1990s rather than drawing a contrast with Obama’s Iran policy. What does a ‘larger coalition’ of Arab nations have to do with ‘the situation in the ‘90s’?
“Phares is referring to the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the coalition of Arab nations that George H. W. Bush formed to demolish Iraq. Saudi Arabia was the backbone of this coalition, as it will be the linchpin of the ‘much larger bloc’ of Sunni Arab states that Trump will lead in a war that shatters and devastates Iran. On Phares’ revealing analogy, the Revolutionary Guard’s forward positions in the Shiite crescent are akin to the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. The difference is that the entirely predictable reaction of the Islamic Republic of Iran to being bombarded by Saudi-based missiles and air force jets is going to be a massive retaliation against Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-Arab sheikhdoms in the Persian Gulf, which will require American and allied Arab forces to put boots on the ground in Iran (at least in support for ethnic separatists and other terrorists) whereas Bush Senior’s coalition never marched to Baghdad. It is also predictable that, if attacked, the Islamic Republic will use Hezbollah to unleash asymmetrical warfare inside the United States on a scale that makes 9/11 look like a firecracker. Certainly, at that point, Congress will be intimidated into authorizing a full-scale American occupation of Iran.”
Jorjani quoted Dr. Phares simply pointed out the newly forming Arab coalition along with Israel to contain Iranian expansion and counter jihadism within the Sunni world. It is quite the stretch for Jorjani to jump from that to all out warfare ending with a US occupation of Iran. Besides, Dr. Phares has published several books over three decades, including on Iran, the Middle East and terrorism. His literature is widely read and praised by experts. But that is not the only imaginative leap in this strange piece. He also claims he was introduced to Dr. Phares by Michael Bagley and that Bagley along a mysterious Mr. X were behind a convoluted plan to elevate Jorjani as head of the “alt-right.”
According to Mr. Bagley, he met Jorjani one time about two years ago and never mentioned Phares to him, at least in the way described. Jorjani, however, claims Bagley introduced him to Dr. Phares in the following extremely strange passage.
“I met with Michael months before the 2016 Presidential Election, again after Trump’s victory (which I was not surprised to see), as well as in the early days of the new administration. He would see President Trump on a regular basis, and he introduced me to others with even more access, including Walid Phares, who Michael described as the shadow Secretary of State. He said that Rex Tillerson was just supposed to be a front man, and that when I spoke to Walid I should assume that I am essentially speaking directly to President Trump.”[emphasis mine]
This is very odd. It goes without saying that Secretary Tillerson is the Secretary of State, period. Dr. Phares is a private citizen and has no secret access to President Trump.
The piece goes on to describe a strange series of events in which several shadowy individuals were supposed to set up Mr Jorjani as some sort of standard bearer for the alt-right by forming a corporation which would then subsume several other far-right organizations. I have no way to gage the accuracy of any of that, except the statement of Michael Bagley which is clearly at odds with Jorjani’s assertions.
Among Jorjani’s many odd claims is that “those of us in the Iranian opposition participating in private White House discussions regarding regime change had to fill out a form stating that we are Muslim.” As a prominent member of the Iranian opposition, I have visited the White House and have never seen such a form and I seriously doubt it exists. To my knowledge, Jorjani has never had any high level discussions with anyone at the White House.
In conclusion I wish to make very plain that Dr. Phares is a scholar, political centrist and foreign policy analyst with no ties whatsoever to the alt-right political movement, or the alt-left for that matter. He advises members of Congress and the European Parliament who are in the political center. It is unfortunate that Mr. Jorjani is trying to link himself to Dr. Phares to make himself seem as if he has access to the administration which he plainly does not have. I do respect Mr. Jorjani and wish him well. This post was meant simply to set the record straight on the fact as I know them.
Hossein Khorram is a an Iranian-American businessman and Republican activist who has appeared many times on Voice of America and Iranian American media promoting democracy and the rule of law in Iran. He is a member of the board of AMCD.
The schools watchdog Ofsted has been voted UK Islamophobe of the Year. Ofsted won the dubious accolade at a ceremony organised by the Islamic Human Rights Commission in London on Sunday evening. That is the unsavoury outfit that organises the al quds offensive through London annually.
Many in the Muslim community feel that Ofsted has targeted Muslim children over the past few years. Several high-performing schools in Birmingham were put in Special Measures by Ofsted and Muslim educationalists were forced out of their jobs following the “Trojan Horse” affair, which was later largely discredited. No it wasn't. Enough of the taqiya; we know your game by now.
The former head of Ofsted, Sir Michael Wilshaw, critcised the wearing of the veil in schools and the current chief, Amanda Spielman, has said that Muslim girls will be questioned by inspectors about why they wear the hijab.
They won't be happy at the lfile Ofsted has complied and detailed in The Times this morning of "of the worst examples of discrimination and sexism its inspectors encountered."
One school Ofsted visited encouraged children to read a text that contrasted the “noble women of the East” with the “internally torn woman of the West” who attracts men and leaves her home to hang around aimlessly in cinemas and cafés.
Other library books insisted that in a Muslim marriage “the wife is not allowed to refuse sex to her husband” or “leave the house where she lives without his permission” while boys and girls were taught that “the man by way of correction can also beat her”. Work marked by teachers stated that women had a responsibility “only to bear children and bring them up as Muslims”.
Among the worst examples was a book discovered in a school library entitled, “Women who deserve to go to hell” which said that it was wrong for wives to show “ingratitude to their husband” or “have tall ambitions”
Ofsted insiders said the books and writings made for “uncomfortable reading”. They are concerned not only that religious schools are using inappropriate materials, but that well- intentioned mainstream schools are permitting extreme forms of Islam in the belief they are being inclusive.
It is understood the material in the dossier may be used in training for inspectors.
A man has been arrested after allegedly planning to carry out a terrorist attack with an automatic rifle at Melbourne's Federation Square on New Year's Eve this year.
The 20-year-old man, who was arrested in Werribee on Monday afternoon, was allegedly planning to shoot and kill as many people as he could in Federation Square.
Victoria Police deputy commissioner Shane Patton said the Australian-born Muslim with Somalian parents sought to purchase, but did not acquire, an automatic weapon to carry out the attack that could have had "horrendous" consequences. "We have been monitoring him for a very lengthy period of time," Mr Patton said. "He's an Australian citizen and of Somalian parents."
The young man was in possession of an al-Qaeda guidebook on how to carry out terrorism attacks and is an Islamic State sympathiser, police allege.
"He has accessed documents produced by al-Qaeda Arabian Peninsula ... a guidebook in respect to how to commit a terrorist act and also how to use firearms, guns and handguns and rifles," Mr Patton said.
"He is associated with other persons in the Victorian extremists community ... it is a very small community of extremists. The potential of the attack is catastrophic. This is a person who has expressed an intention to try and kill as many people as he could. It's horrendous. . . "
The man is expected to be charged later on Tuesday with engaging in acts in preparation for a terrorist offence and collecting documents to facilitate a terrorist act.
Police expect him to appear at Melbourne Magistrates Court later today or the early hours of tomorrow. VictoriaPolice, Australian Federal Police and ASIO were involved in the investigation that resulted in the young man's arrest. Police do not anticipate further arrests.
Father Christmas gets about, and ISIS aspires to follow him, although not for the same good purpose of spreading good cheer. Yesterday it was London, Paris and German cities; today New York and the Vatican. From the Daily Mail.
ISIS fanatics are sharing a disturbing propaganda image threatening an attack on New York at Christmas time.
The image shows Santa Claus standing on a low roof next to a box of dynamite looking out over a crowd of shoppers in Times Square.The poster has the words 'We meet at Christmas in New York... soon,' written across it in black on white.
Earlier today a poster emerged showing a terrorist overlooking St Peter's Square in the Vatican with rocket launcher, along with a message urging extremists: 'Do not hold back with your blood, the reward is paradise.'
The message warned that 'the crusaders' feast is approaching', alluding to a Christmas attack the Catholic church's holy city.
In total the teenager was convicted of five terror offences, which he had denied.
At the start of the boy's trial it emerged that he had written a note apparently aimed for distribution after his death reading: "I am a soldier of the Islamic State and I have attacked Cardiff today because your government keep on bombing targets in Syria and Iraq. There will be more attacks in the future."
The note - found with the gutting knife and claw hammer - also featured bullet points including "run down the non-believers with a car" and "strike the infidels, who oppose Allah, in the neck".
A court heard the boy, who is from a white British background, may have also been looking to target Cardiff Castle.
Prosecutors said the boy uploaded an image of the castle to social media with a caption, "Cardiff are you prepared?", alongside a picture of a jeep, knife and a bomb.
Another image was captioned: "Oh my Islamic state brothers you are the role models of these worlds. 'The attack on Cardiff will be deadly."
I've been convinced after thinking it through that the best thing for Saudi Arabia would be Israel. The figures on the chessboard of politics are forever changing with regard to each other. It is an agreeable surprise that for the first time a young Jewish woman is competing in the contest to become Miss Germany. More significantly, the changing Middle East based on mutual interests was shown in a New York synagogue where Efraim Halevy, former head of the Israeli Mossad, met Egyptian Prince Turki bin Faisal al Saud, long time head of Saudi Arabian intelligence agency. Another encounter was in a synagogue in Paris, visited in November 2017 by two former Saudi officials, a minister for justice, and a minister for education.
It is exactly 40 years since the historic visit of President Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem paved the way to the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. The time is now ripe for a closer relationship, an open diplomatic one, between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saudi Arabia cannot yet be considered an open society, but things are changing, with a certain amount of discussion allowed in social media, and concerts and performances, and a new dynamic and bold leader, the 32 year old Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, appointed to the rank in June 2017.
The Crown Prince, a young man in a hurry if somewhat impulsive, has already acted to exert control over the country, and has been consolidating and centralizing power since his appointment. He has replaced the former Crown Prince, his older cousin Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, first as interior minister who was in control of security arrangements. He removed Prince Mitreb bin Abdullah as head of the national guard, the internal police force.
Particularly surprising were the events of November 4, 2017 when there was a purge of senior princes and business leaders accused of corruption. They included the billionaire Alwaleed bin Talal, one of the world's richest men, who has been nicknamed the Warren Buffet of Arabia. Moreover, Salman has shown his power by what appears to the house arrest on charges of systematic corruption involving $100 billion of more than 200 prominent and rich people now housed in the palatial and prestigious Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Riyadh which hosted President Donald Trump in May 2017.
The Crown Prince appears to have two major obejctives: to confront challenge Iran politically, diplomatically, militarily, strategically, and theologically; and to modernize Saudi Arabia, eliminate corruption, and foster a more competitive economy. Two of Salman's projects to introduce economic and social change and end the reliance on oil are especially impressive, plans for a Mega-city, and the Neom project. The Mega-city proposal is a $500 billion plan for a unit that spans Egypt and Jordan as well as Saudi Arabia, powered by energy from different sources. The Neom project is planned as a large center for innovation and trade, linking industry and technology.
With the decline in oil prices the Saudi economy has faltered, and had a budget deficit of $79 billion last year. The main plan for change, Vision 2030, envisages increasing non-oil revenue to 600 billion riyals, ($169 billion) by 2020, and1 trillion riyals by 2030. Part of the revenue would come from privatizing part of the state oil company, Saudi Aramco. The plan would create what Salman calls the world's largest sovereign wealth fund. Economic liberalisation will involve financial cuts in benefits for civil servants and military personnel, and in energy subidies.
Social changes related to the plans are changes in the educational curriculum, increasing women's participation in the workforce, allowing women to drive, and investing $3 billion in the entertainment sector.
Saudi Arabia has become more active politically and miltarily, acting to preserve its territorial integrity and political stability. Salman led a boycott of Qatar in June 2017 for allegedly providing supplies to Yemen. He had already intervened in fighting in Yemen in order to restore the goverment of Yemeni president Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi who was forced to resign in January 2015 under pressure from Shia militia.
Salman pressured Lebanese prime minister Saad al-Hariri to resign on November 4, 2017, defying the views of UK, EU, France, and Germany. He has used some of the nomadic tribes that originate in Saudi Arabia to influence activity in the Middle East beyond its border.
Undoubtedly the main issue for Saudi Arabia is the rival Iran, the mount of all evils, seem as an existential threat. Saudi Arabia with armed forces of 250,000, and 900 battle tanks confronts the more powerful Iran which has 560,000 armed forces and 1,500 battle tanks. Saudi's only military advantage is its more up to date combat air fleet.
Already there are proxy wars between the two countries. In Yemen, in a war that has cost 10,000 lives, Iran has supplied ballistic missiles fired by Shia Houthi rebels who are opposed by the Saudis. In Syria, rebels funded by the Saudis have been defeated by the forces of President Assad helped by Iran. In Lebanon, the Hezbollah, supported and armed by Iran, is an increasing problem for the Saudis who see it as a force for instability in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia, to gain support, has formed an alliance of Sunni countries against Shia Iran. Prince Salman on November 26, 2017 convened a meeting, attended by all members except Qatar, in Riyadh to energize the military coalition, the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism coalition of 41 members set up by the Saudis in 2015. It is essentially a military alliance among Sunni Muslim states against Islamic terrorism activity, financing, and ideology. Iraq, Syria, and Iran, are not members.
This meeting was a response to the November 24, 2017 the bomb and gun attack on a mosque in north Sinai, frequented by Islamic Sufis, considered a heretical sect. The attack that killed 305 and injured 128 was carried out by assailants who carried an ISIS flag.
Saudi political and religious authorities have made clear that the enemy is terrorism, not sects, or religions, or races. One of the greatest dangers of this extremist Islamist terrorism is held to be distorting the reputation of "our tolerant religion." An interesting and important departure is the view of the Grand Mufti, Abdul Alash-Sheikh, of the country, who remarked both that killing Jews and fighting against Israel was inappropriate for Muslims, and that Hamas is a terror organization.
An open question is the relationship with Israel now that the Saudis need friends in the bitter rivalry with Iran. Its general problem had been worsened by the result of the US led coalition in 2003 in Iraq that ended the regime of Saddam Hussein, a regime that, with all its brutalities, was for the Saudis a Sunni Arab counter weight to Shia Iran. Now the Shia dominated political leadership in Iraq is close to Iran, and an Iraqi Shia militia is helping Assad.
There is no likelihood at present of any kind of formal peace with Israel, or full diplomatic and economic relations with Israel but nor is there any real Saudi concern about Palestine. Any deal about Palestine, especially one based on the 2002 Saudi peace initiative, based on Israel withdrawal from occupied territory, would be acceptable. The Saudis could then normalize relations with Israel without fear of backlash from Arab counries.
It is time for the Saudis to follow the trend in other countries that are friendly to or cooperating with Israel. In 2015 Israel opened its first office in the UAE, and some Arab countries are thinking of suspending their ban on Israeli aircraft flying over Arab air space. It is too strong to envisage Israel and Saudi Arabia as de facto allies in the struggle with Iran, but there is common concern over the possibility of Iran as a nuclear state and increasing power.
Some covert meetings and intelligence cooperation have occured between the two countries. This is insufficient. Normalization of relations will benefit both sides in trade, military and now cyberspace intelligence. It will also benefit the whole Middle East.
The media response to the vehicular terror attack in New York on Halloween gets high marks for political correctness, but failing grades for honesty and moral clarity. Both the mayor and governor of New York swiftly acknowledged it as an act of terrorism, but were equally quick to characterize it as a lone wolf attack and to ignore or downplay the perpetrator’s ideology. In so doing, they followed the same strategy employed by the former Obama administration to create a buffer between radical Islam and its core religious foundation. But there should have been no confusion about the philosophy of a terrorist who shouted “Allahu Akbar” after running down innocent pedestrians or his allegiance to a terror organization – ISIS – which routinely exhorts its followers to use motor vehicles as weapons to kill “infidels.”
Major news networks were just as willing to shift the story away from the agony of the victims and the terrorist’s doctrinal motivations, and to focus instead on the threat of an anti-Muslim backlash that never seems to materialize despite the dire warnings of progressive apologists. Less than a day after the attack, the principal storyline in a report by NBC was the Muslim community’s fear of reprisal – not the dead and injured, not the shock of the witnesses or horror of the survivors, and not the radical beliefs of Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, an Uzbek immigrant who carried out the attack and then reportedly asked for an ISIS flag to be hung in his hospital room. Many in the mainstream media echoed similar sentiments, warning of Islamophobic repercussions that never came. . . .
Indeed, there were far more documented instances of bias against Jews during the Obama years than against other minority groups, including Muslims and Arabs....