The dream of a society so perfect that no one will have to be good (as T.S. Eliot put it) is a beguiling one for intellectuals, perhaps because they think that they will be in charge of it, as a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association titled “The Moral Determinants of Health” well illustrates.
In this article, which has the merit of being clear and logical, no single instance of individual conduct is mentioned as being necessary for, or conducive, to health. In the healthy society envisaged by the author, who is a public health doctor in Massachusetts, no one will have to try to behave well—not drink or eat too much, refrain from smoking or taking drugs, not indulge in hazardous pastimes, take recommended but safe exercise and so forth—because everything will come as a matter of course to him. Living in a perfect society, he will behave perfectly. The author’s means of achieving these ends are entirely political, and wildly impractical examples of progressivism without practical wisdom—and as such, unremarkable.
More troublingly, in the author’s view, at least implicitly, health is the goal of goals to which all other considerations ought to be subordinate. It is perhaps natural for a doctor to think this, concerned as he is, day in, day out, with the health of others, but nevertheless this is a very reductive view of life.
It goes almost without saying that health is desirable; no one would actually prefer to be unhealthy than healthy, though a considerable number do prefer to claim to be unhealthy, or unhealthier than they are. But we should remember that a life is not well- or badly-lived according only to its length. Mozart died at thirty-six, but would anyone say that his life would have been better-lived had he survived to seventy-two but without having composed any of his music? People, moreover, sacrifice their lives for any number of reasons, from the noblest to the most ignoble. Would anyone say that Martin Luther King lived badly because he exposed himself to assassination, which a nice quiet life would not have done? As is known, assassination is bad for the health; we do not say, therefore, that people who tell the truth despite threats are bad because they betray the cause of health and thereby lower (albeit infinitesimally) life expectancy in their society.
Let us take the word determinant and examine the case of cigarette smoking. In Britain, as in America, there is a decline in life expectancy as one descends the socio-economic scale (though even the poorest have a life expectancy half as great as members of the British Royal Family in the middle of the 19th century). A very considerable proportion of the difference is accounted for by the prevalence of smoking, much higher in the lower classes than in the upper.
Why is this? It was not always so. However, when it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that smoking caused lung cancer, and then a variety of other serious diseases, the richer and better-educated portions of society abandoned smoking as a pleasure and a habit. The lower classes did so to a lesser extent (though still to some extent).
It is not that the lower classes do not know that smoking is bad for their health. In getting on for half a century, I have never met anyone of any class who did not know this. Many, however, say that they wish to take their chances; the pleasure or relief provided by smoking is such that they deem the risk worth it.
We cannot say that they are necessarily wrong, though it is not a choice we ourselves would make. I have indulged in many risky behaviours in my life, that nevertheless seemed to me worth the risk.
Now the author of “The Moral Determinants of Health,” who writes solely of poverty, inequality, racism, etc., would either have to take away the choice of people who choose to smoke, thus setting himself up as a dictator, or he would have to admit that there are individual determinants of health related to the choices people make. Correlation is not cause; the fact that more poor people smoke than rich is not the same as saying that poverty causes smoking. Men are not billiard balls whose direction is determined in a purely mechanistic way by the impact of a few physical forces.
One does not have to go to the opposite extreme and claim that there are no social influences at all, and that men are total masters of their fate in all circumstances. Take the question of obesity: it is a sad fact that fat mothers have fat children because they overfeed them (quite apart from any genetic influence). Fat children are more likely to be fat adults: it is harder, though not impossible, for them to be otherwise. It is certainly not fair that fat children should have to struggle more than thin not to be fat in adulthood, but this again is not the same as saying that there is no moral dimension whatever to their individual body mass index, nor is it the same as saying that, if there is such a dimension, they should be denied all sympathy or assistance in trying to do something about their obesity. As Dr. Chasuble said to the morally exigent Miss Prism: “Charity, Miss Prism, charity, we are none of us perfect. I myself am peculiarly susceptible to draughts.”
The author of the article in JAMA is unaware that his opposition to mass incarceration actually undermines his argument, for it is a fact—a sad and horrible fact, but a fact nonetheless—that imprisonment decreases the death rate among prisoners compared with their peers outside. I worked it out that a prisoner is just over half as likely to die in prison in Britain as are his peers outside. If the avoidance of death were all-important, we should be imprisoning more, not fewer, young men. I presume that no one thinks this.
According to the figures provided by JAMA, over 100,000 people have read the article on-line. I would imagine, though I don’t know, that most of them are doctors. In the comments, there is not a single dissent from the premises of the article. Whether dissent would be censored, I do not know, but I very much doubt it.
I think, then, that it is possible that a dictatorship of virtue would not be abhorrent to at least a large section of the population.
Clouds of Summer Obscure the Coming Thunder of November
The most telling statistic that emerged in the past week was that more than 60 percent of Americans feel uneasy discussing their political preferences.
by Conrad Black
Apart from exposing once again the obtuseness, the moral bankruptcy, and the almost inexpressible hatred of the president that possesses the Democratic congressional leadership, Attorney General William Barr’s appearance at the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday clarified in a few minutes why the national interest requires the reelection of the administration.
From the refusal to allow the attorney general to answer the questions which the Democratic propaganda machine had assured the country would be unanswerable, to the almost unimaginable discourtesy of the bumbling and nasty committee chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.)—who declined even to agree to the attorney general’s request for a five-minute break—to the concise dismissals Barr was able to make when allocated time by Republican congressmen to answer the belligerent allegations of their Democratic colleagues; all of it demonstrated the extent to which this election campaign has become an exercise in make-believe.
The fantasy that a successful administration that has bucked unprecedented illegal obstruction and is managing an epochal public health crisis is about to be handed a gigantic pink slip to give Democrats a mandate to transform the United States into a profoundly socialist country under a figurehead president who hasn’t the stature to be more than a loquacious senator or companionable vice president, continues to be widely believed.
The Political Impossibility of Biden’s Platform
London’s Economist magazine, most of whose dwindling circulation resides in the United States, was until about 10 years ago an insightful and original publication judging most political and economic questions fairly and from a sensible progressive capitalist perspective. But today it illustrates the perversity of the anti-Trump delusional pandemic.
In its July 4 issue, the Economist solemnly intoned that Trump would have to reverse the supposedly rampaging coronavirus pandemic, accelerate the economic recovery, and generally be a more empathetic chap in order to have more than the one chance in nine that the magazine gave him for reelection. Biden was extolled as naturally popular and his rather glaring shortcomings, including his shaky intellectual stamina and prodigious past financial abuse of public office, were simply whitewashed.
Even allowing for the fact that the Economist has sunk into the fetid marsh of globalism, green fear, and guilt-ridden Western self-criticism, it illustrates the purblind self-unawareness of the contemporary Western media that a Biden election is judged almost certain.
In what its readers presumably imagine to be a thoughtful analysis, the Economist did not mention the likelihood that much of the Obama-Biden Administration is about to be indicted for the most colossal constitutional crimes in the country’s history in trying to alter and then undo the 2016 presidential election result. It did not blink at the complete political and practical impossibility of the program that Biden has now embraced.
Having been picked out of the electoral dumpster where the primary voters had left him, and placed by the party elders on the nomination throne, Biden has run away from the arms of his minders into the beckoning clutches of the Sanders-Ocasio-Cortez socialist Democrats.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and the Economist have proclaimed Biden to be the most “progressive candidate since FDR,” committing, like most commentators from Right to Left, the irritating mistake of accepting that Franklin D. Roosevelt was a man of the Left. (He was an altruistic capitalist who wished to make America safe for those who lived in 40-room houses on thousand-acre states as he did, and he saved 95 percent of a failed and bankrupt system.) The reactionary Right has allowed the Left to kidnap FDR and monopolize “progress.”
Among other things, Biden is now pledged to work for the elimination of the oil and gas industry and the 7 million jobs connected to it; to increase drastically the taxes of the upper half of American income-earners; to reinvigorate the putrid corpse of organized labor for which a society that provides adequate legislative protection of working people has no use or need; to reopen the borders without limitation and permit anyone who purports to be an American resident to vote; to use harvested mailed ballots when necessary to assure a lopsided Democratic advantage in elections to come; to look positively into the virtues of reparations for African-Americans—an item budgeted at many trillions of dollars even by comparatively sensible African-American spokespeople; to stand down much of the American military; and to return to a policy of rigorous passivity opposite the Chinese lunge for world power paramountcy.
None of these issues is being focused on now or were recognized by the Economist, and declared voting preferences have been influenced by the successful Democratic media campaign to terrorize the country over the coronavirus.
Mob Violence vs. Law and Order
Trump is now diligently applying himself to being clearly, once again, on top of the effort to resume the reduction of the fatality rates. At some point in the next two months, he is going to have to commend to the voters the altogether American policy of ceasing to hide in fear from this illness and instead to concentrate on sheltering the vulnerable while the rest of the country, the 80 percent of people who have a 99.9 percent chance of surviving it, get on with their lives. Parallel to this process will be the resumption of the vertiginous reduction in unemployment numbers.
What the public will remember from the appearance of the attorney general at the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday is his lamentation that one of the two great historic political parties of the country is now unwilling or unable to condemn mob violence, and when taxed with the COVID-19 crisis as if he were the secretary of health and human services, Barr reminded the Democrats that the Trump Administration inherited a completely depleted and almost useless public health crisis response capability from of the Obama-Biden regime.
The most telling statistic on the election campaign that emerged in the past week was that more than 60 percent of Americans feel uneasy discussing their political preferences. As Republican National Committee spokespeople have asserted, most of the current polls are just part of the Democratic propaganda effort to discourage Republicans and continue the morale-boosting singsong of the Democratic multitudes trying to pretend that the country is cranking up to replace its most energetic president since Theodore Roosevelt with a waxworks dummy hiding in his basement, who has never, in nearly 50 years in politics, enjoyed any support outside the doll-house state of Delaware.
The election campaign is obscured by summer clouds. We will see the COVID-19 crisis subside, possibly accelerated by a vaccine, continuing economic recovery, the political consequences of the Democratic mollycoddling of anti-white racist urban violence, and we will see the full exposure of the constitutional crimes of the former administration which a Biden administration, as the attorney general said in the Capitol on Tuesday, would try to sweep under the rug.
We all see this, but the majority are in suspensive denial or determined silence. All have seen the lightning; the thunder will come on November 3.
HONOR, RESPECT, SUBMISSION: THE CONTEMPORARY MORAL CONFUSION
by Howard Rotberg
The Macmillan Dictionary defines the verb to “honor” (spelled “honour” in Britain and Canada) as “to show your respect or admiration for someone, especially by giving them a prize or title, or by praising them publicly.”
And so, George Floyd, whose adult life was spent in years of crime and jail sentences and in impregnating and then abandoning 5 different women, and participating in an armed home invasion where he held a gun to the pregnant belly of a woman victim, has been honored in the United States.
Important people came to his funeral, young people have his photo on t-shirts. The most bizarre tribute was the launching of an anti-American, Marxist, anti-Semitic movement calling itself “Black Lives Matter”. However, some analysis shows that the movement was not to indicate that Black lives matter as much as all other lives, but that Black lives and Black grievances and Black rights, matter more than other lives. And so an American academic was disciplined for writing a sympathetic email in which she stated that “all lives matter”. Then, a 27 year old mother was shot dead for saying “all lives matter” as some Black Lives Matter violent radicals passed by who refused to submit to the supposed indignity of being thereby placed equal to other people. It seems the goal of equality is now less than the goal of getting whites to submit to this enhanced form of Black Power based on submission to any of their demands.
An estimate of the crowds at the protests and the violent riots that have gone on for many weeks, show that whites compose the majority of protesters, both peaceful and violent. The sad death of Mr. Floyd by an out-of-control cop (who apparently knew Mr. Floyd as they were once co-workers in security for a bar), must surely be condemned but does Floyd deserve to be “honored” which implies, as noted above, “respect” and “admiration?”
The more that whites are induced to acknowledge historical or current systemic racism in America, the greater the amount of power that accrues to Blacks. In his 2006 book, White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of Civil Rights, Shelby Steele, a conservative black academic, criticizes "white guilt" saying that it is nothing more than an alternative interpretation of the concept of “black power”:
“Whites (and American institutions) must acknowledge historical racism to show themselves redeemed by it, but once they acknowledge it, they lose moral authority over everything having to do with race, equality, social justice, poverty and so on. [...] The authority they lose transfers to the 'victims' of historical racism and becomes their great power in society. This is why white guilt is quite literally the same thing as Black power."
The columnist George Will wrote: "[White guilt is] a form of self-congratulation, where whites initiate 'compassionate policies' toward people of color, to showcase their innocence to racism."
This white guilt is, then, often related to what is called “virtue signalling”: This is the term meaning, according to Dictionary.com, “the sharing of one's point of view on a social or political issue, often on social media, in order to garner praise or acknowledgment of one’s righteousness from others who share that point of view, or to passively rebuke those who do not”. It also is said to mean the act of accusing someone of “trying to win praise for showing support for a social cause without actually doing anything meaningful to advance it. This charge is often used against people for being self-righteously “woke” on social media.” The Oxford Dictionary terms it a “pejorative neologism for the conspicuous expression of moral values”, suggesting that it is most often used pejoratively outside of academia.
And so American culture, which gave up so many civil war military deaths to free black slaves, which attempted a Reconstruction, that underwent a Civil Rights Movement (where Jews, now subject to anti-Semitism from Black Lives Matter, marched alongside Martin Luther King Jr., and other black leaders) and a long term affirmative action movement in universities and in corporation, seems receptive to being told it is fundamentally racist and that there is systemic racism. Moreover there seems some consensus among the Left that American athletes and entertainers and politicians should kneel before every event to acknowledge the supposed systemic racism. Moreover, at a recent Women’s NBA game, the players got up and walked around during the playing of the national anthem to emphasize their contempt for the country that allows them to be so richly compensated for playing a game.
It becomes clear, upon a review of the figures, that poor Blacks have more to fear from other blacks than they do policemen. But the video of Floyd’s slow death under the policeman’s knee, that has been seen millions of times, is now a symbol. A symbol doesn’t have to be logical or based on facts, and that is often its strength and utility: Symbolism, said Alfred North Whitehead “is no mere idle fancy or corrupt degeneration; it is inherent in the very texture of human life.”
Symbols are sometimes chosen by the inarticulate, because what articulate person with a confidence that his well-articulated arguments will be heard, would instead choose symbolism? Antifa adopts black clothing and masks and obscene graffiti as its symbols of choice. And the burning of American flags and the shunning of the American anthem are meant to be a symbols of disgust and absolute rejection of traditional America at the hands of those seeking its fundamental transformation.
And, given the acute cultural chaos, the choice of who we honor or respect is very telling. Our cultural chaos is in part based on cultural and moral relativism, so that we are prevented from making expressions of judgment on any group, no matter how immoral that group might be according to traditional standards of the Judeo-Christian ethics. “Respect”, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is defined as “a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities ar achievements."
This points to the foundation of our problem. We are told to respect all people. Hillary Clinton once infamously advocated that America should adopt what she termed “Smart Power” - “showing respect even for one’s enemies, trying to understand, and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.”
Black Lives Matter or George Floyd should not be honored or respected. Nor should the Muslim Brotherhood or any Islamist organization. Their conduct is more important than their words or the symbolic uses to which they are put. The bottom line is we should not have a feeling of “deep admiration” for “their abilities, qualities or achievements.”
It seems that the West has learned little from the genocidal, racist, homophobic, anti-woman, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-freedom Islamists. In a bizarre form of the Stockholm Syndrome, our culture has been giving respect to the worst of the Islamists. Black Lives Matter can be said to have learned that the more violent one becomes the more “respect” one gets: Barack Obama shall forever be known for his “apology tour” to the Muslim world, right after his inauguration where he said: “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and the Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect (my emphasis)... “shar(ing) common principles – principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”
And so, Obama gave respect to the Islamists and the Democratic Party gives respect to the Black Lives Matters radicals; in both cases American media, academia, and Democratic Party leaders, all give respect to bad people with bad values. Once you make a habit of that cultural relativism, it is all too easy to lose your bearings and think that your enemy, whether domestic or international, shares the same view of acceptable qualities and achievements. And if that is so, how can you refuse to submit to those groups, when allegations of racism are in the air?
America saw nothing wrong with its Secretary of State Hillary Clinton having as her principal assistant, Huma Abedin, a Saudi operative of the Muslim Brotherhood. And if that is the case, we should not be surprised that more Blacks than ever are giving an ear to the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan.
Major Doctor Hassan the terrorist murderer at Fort Hood, was said by Obama to be an example of “workplace violence” not terrorism. And so Islamists seeking to impose a world-wide caliphate by violent jihad and the adoption of Sharia Law), are welcomed into Congress, even onto the foreign affairs committee (as was Ilhan Omar) and into our universities that have now submitted to the Palestinian obsession with destroying Israel as part of paving the way for eventual Islamist rule.
Submission is made inevitable when the education system has been captured by the Islamists and the Black Lives Matter crowd. As to the latter, one element of submission is to the demand that Black students be exempted from the grammar used in traditional white, educated circles. Educational administrators are seriously discussing whether the rules of grammar are part of the systemic racism against Blacks.
In addition to the sad mis-use of honor and respect, I have written about the way that tolerance has been hi-jacked into the arsenal of the cultural relativists. I have termed excessive tolerance of the intolerant and illiberal the ideology of Tolerism. (see Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed, Mantua Books) and I discuss in depth the ways in which this Tolerism, and undeserved honor and repect have encouraged our submission to the enemy in The ideological Path to Submission ... and what we can do about it (Mantua Books).
Howard Rotberg writes on political culture, values and ideologies. He has written for Frontpage Magazine, New English Review, Israel National News, Vancouver Sun, Hamilton Spectator, Israpundit, Waterloo Region Record and others. He has authored four books - Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed,The Ideological Path to Submission... and what we can do about it,Exploring Vancouverism: The Political Culture of Canada's Lotus Land, and The Second Catastrophe: A Novel About a Book and its Author. He is founding publisher of Canada’s sole conservative values and pro-Israel publishing house – www.mantuabooks. Com. He resides in Hamilton Canada.
With Declining Birth Rates, Is There Nothing For the First World But ‘Unlimited Mass Migration’?
by Hugh Fitzgerald
First world countries are suffering from a steady decrease in their fertility rates, and hence their populations. Some “experts” claim the only solution is for limitless immigration from Africa. The story is here.
First world countries must respond to a “jaw-dropping” crash in fertility by totally opening their borders to unlimited mass migration, according to “experts” interviewed by the BBC.
Falling fertility rates are “a success story” because they mean more women are in work and are not having children, according to a report by the BBC published on Wednesday [July 19].
Why are falling fertility rates a “success story”? Why is the fact that women are not having children, or not having as many children as in the past, deemed by some a “success”? Is it not a vote of no confidence in the future? An expression of financial anxieties?
It is shocking, however, that lower fertility rates will result in 23 countries, including Spain and Japan, seeing their populations drop by more than half by 2100, Professor Christopher Murray told the state media organ.
“That’s a pretty big thing; most of the world is transitioning into natural population decline,” the researcher said, adding: “I think it’s incredibly hard to think this through and recognise how big a thing this is; it’s extraordinary, we’ll have to reorganise societies.”
“You might think this is great for the environment. A smaller population would reduce carbon emissions as well as deforestation for farmland,” says the BBC, which has been promoting a “child-free” life to British women for decades as “liberation” and as a means to “save the planet.”
But “who pays tax in a massively aged world?” the state broadcaster asks, going on to tell readers that there must be a massive population transfer from Africa to the first world to make up for a deficit of babies.
If there is to be a “massive population transfer,” why does the BBC insist it must it be from Africa? Why not, for example, have a “massive population transfer” of immigrants from Latin America, whose peoples are Christian, and who do not harbor religious or racial hostility to Europeans? Or Christian and Buddhist immigrants from Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines could form part of that “massive population transfer.”
“Countries, including the UK, have used migration to boost their population and compensate for falling fertility rates,” asserts the BBC, neglecting to mention that third world migration has been a huge net drain on the British treasury.
The UK has not “used migration to boost their population” – as if it were a deliberate policy — but has quite unnecessarily felt an obligation to accept migrants who have managed to make it, legally or illegally, to the U.K. Immigrants are not always and everywhere an unalloyed good; their costs to, and effects on, society, vary considerably. Muslims, in particular, bring with them, undeclared in their mental baggage, an inculcated hatred of Infidels. They arrive as economic migrants – though often claiming to be refugees – and are quick to take advantage of every conceivable benefit that the generous welfare states of Europe offer. Thus many Muslim immigrants receive free or greatly subsidized housing, free medical care, free education, unemployment benefits (even without ever having been employed in their new country), family allowances, and more. All of this is a huge expense. The unemployment rates for Muslims are much higher than those for any other immigrant groups. Some Muslims believe that the non-Muslims among whom they settle owe them a kind of proleptic jizyah, the tax that in Muslim polities Infidels are supposed to pay to the Muslim state as a kind of protection money, allowing them to practice their religion without being harmed. Similarly, the rates of criminality among Muslim immigrants far exceeds those for any other group, immigrant or indigenous, in all the European countries where they now live.
To support this argument [for the need of “a massive population transfer from Africa”], the broadcaster [BBC] speaks to mass migration enthusiast Professor Ibrahim Abubakar from University College London (UCL), who said: “If these predictions are even half accurate, migration will become a necessity for all nations and not an option.”
This last comment — “migration is a necessity for all nations” — makes no sense. If he means “immigration is a necessity for all nations,” then where will those needed immigrants come from? Surely he means that “immigration will become a necessity for all First World nations.”
“To be successful, we need a fundamental rethink of global politics. The distribution of working-age populations will be crucial to whether humanity prospers or withers.”
It’s unsurprising that someone named Ibrahim Abubakar is a “mass migration enthusiast.” But would he be such an enthusiast if the migrants Europe chose to take in were Christians from South America rather than Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East? Or would he deem such a sensible policy to be deeply “racist” and unacceptable?
This sentiment — that mass migration will be mandatory — was echoed in the article by Professor Murray, who told the BBC: “We will go from the period where it’s a choice to open borders, or not, to frank competition for migrants, as there won’t be enough.”
A bidding war for Third World “migrants”? Nonsense. They are desperate to be taken in; hundreds of millions will move heaven and earth to smuggle themselves into the West. And that is what must be prevented. This notion that the advanced nations of Europe and North America will be forced to “compete” for migrants, without being able to take into account the great differences among migrant populations, is absurd. We are able to compare the real costs, including unemployment rates and rates of criminality, of different immigrant groups, as well as the likelihood that real integration into the larger society can take place. By all of these criteria, Muslim immigrants are the most expensive to the state, the most disruptive to the social order, the most physically dangerous to the general population, and the least likely to integrate into the host society. Do we want the U.K. to look ever more like Pakistan, or France more like Algeria, or the Netherlands more like Morocco? Are we allowed to express our dismay at the very idea, or would that be enough to consign us to the outer darkness?
It is curious that both Ibrahim Abubakar and Professor Murray think there is nothing to be done to make up for declining populations other than mass migration, of a kind that would change forever the nature of the host societies, and likely destroy the wellbeing of their indigenous populations.
Noting projections that the population of sub-Saharan Africa is set to treble to over three billion people by the end of this century, he argued that “global recognition of the challenges around racism are going to be all the more critical” in the coming years, stating that large numbers of African migrants and their descendants will be present in “many more countries.”
The tone is one of fatalism: “large numbers of African migrants and their descendants will be present in many more countries” admits of no dissent. Apparently those living in those countries will have no say in the matter. But that future is not a given. It would have been better to have said that “migration [from places yet unspecified] may be useful if the native populations continue to decline in numbers.”
But there are so many other things to consider. For example, for many industrial processes, humans can be replaced by machines. And not just on the factory floor. Machines can replace warehouse workers (Amazon has more than 100,000 robots), farmers, drivers. Artificial intelligence and robotics are an ever-greater part of the advanced world’s economies. All this needs to be factored in when calculating the size of the population that may be needed to keep an economy going.
In addition, the BBC uses the article to stress that first world countries should not try to increase the fertility rate of their native populations, stating that “researchers warn against undoing the progress on women’s education and access to contraception.”
This is both absurd and infuriating. The people in “first world countries” are being told there is nothing they should do to increase their own populations. They are told, peremptorily, by these heedless enthusiasts for mass migration, to accept the replacement of the indigenous populations in the First World by migrants from Africa, and that attempting a pro-natalist policy would actually damage the position of women. We are supposed to believe that by having more children, women in the First World would no longer have access to contraception, or to higher education. They would all be left barefoot and pregnant. But that’s nonsense. No one in the First World will be denied access to contraception. That doesn’t mean it must be used, and indeed birth control should be encouraged, but only for women in the Third World, where women are producing far more children than they can support. It is their fertility rates that we should be worrying about.
As for the claim that an increase in women’s fertility in the First World could stymie the progress made in women’s education – how does this follow? Higher education in the advanced world leads to better economic prospects for women; their higher salaries makes it easier to feed and house larger families and, where necessary, to hire others to help with the children.
What is most maddening is the attempt to bully the West into believing there is nothing it can do, with its declining birth rates, except to throw up its hands and admit large numbers of immigrants from Africa, many or most of whom will be Muslims. Already the large-scale presence of Muslim immigrants in Western Europe has created a situation both for their indigenous hosts, and for other, non-Muslim immigrants, that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous, than would be the case without that large-scale presence.
Many things, other than mass migration from Africa, can be done in the First World to deal with fertility rates falling below replacement levels. Let’s no longer pretend that all immigrants are equally to be welcomed. Muslims cost their host societies far more, in the benefits they require and receive, than do non-Muslim migrants. Muslims have larger families, which means they are entitled to larger dwellings, based on family size, that are either free or greatly subsidized by the state. Their medical costs are higher, too, because of the greater incidence of congenital illnesses, the predictable result of the great frequency of cousin-marriages among Muslims. Muslims exhibit much higher levels of unemployment than non-Muslims in Europe; many seem in no hurry to be gainfully employed, finding that unemployment — together with other benefits — can come close to what they would receive if employed. Consequently, the unemployment benefit systems in Europe are groaning under this new burden. Rates of criminality among Muslim immigrants are also much higher than for any other immigrant group. Think of the total cost to the state this entails, for more police, more detectives, more prosecutors, more court-appointed lawyers, more judges, more prison guards, more prisons. It all adds up.
There are alternative reservoirs of migrants on which the First World countries could rely. I have already mentioned one: the Christian peoples of Mexico, Central, and South America who, unlike Muslims, have not been inculcated with a hatred of European or American Infidels. And these migrants have shown themselves willing to work, and desirous of integrating into, rather than remaining aloof from, the First World countries where they have been allowed to live.
Another pool of migrants who might be given preferential treatment as migrants to Europe are found in the Philippines. Almost 200,000 Christian Filipinos are already working in Italy as care-givers (badante). The shared heritage of Catholicism makes it easier for them to fit into the larger society. Why not let in a great many more Filipino immigrants elsewhere in Europe? Other nationalities that are a possible source of desirable immigrants are refugees — Vietnamese (both Buddhists and Catholics) fleeing religious suppression in Communist Vietnam, and Christian (and Hindu) refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia, fleeing persecution by Muslims.
But aside from being intelligently selective in the immigrants they allow in, the First World countries should not hesitate to adopt pro-natalist policies of the kind now being tried, with success, in Hungary. In that country, newly-married couples are given an interest-free loan of $36,000 which is cancelled when they have their third child. A woman who has four or more children is then exempt from paying income tax for her entire life. Outright grants – not loans — are given to families for housing; the more children in the family, the greater the size of the grant. Hungary, which had the second-lowest birthrate in the E.U., now has shown a remarkable increase in fertility rates. Between January 2019 and January 2020, the Hungarian birth rate (the number of births per 1,000 people) increased by 9.4 per cent. This increase was reflected in the total fertility rate (the number of babies a woman is expected to have over her lifetime) which increased from 1.4 to 1.6 children (the accepted replacement rate is 2.1). Finally, the number of marriages celebrated in the country has increased in only one year by 100%. The policy seems to be working. And similar pro-natalist policies are being implemented in Poland. Aside from Hungary and Poland, pro-natalist polices are also in effect in France, Greece, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, South Korea, and Japan. These policies need to be studied to find out what works and what doesn’t, and what can be tweaked, and how much the most promising policies cost.
That is the rational approach. The irrational approach is simply to throw up your hands, say that “nothing can be done” to alleviate the problem of declining populations in the First World, save for one thing – “massive migration from Africa.” But pro-natalist policies can work, if well-crafted and sufficiently funded. Along with those policies, First World countries have both a right and a duty to select those immigrants whom, the evidence suggests, will be the least burdensome on their societies, and the most likely to successfully integrate. From sad experience we know whom that excludes.
With media and government attention firmly focused on the far-Left and far-Right at present, it is prudent to remember that Islamist networks still present a grave threat. Just last year, FBI Director Christopher Wray declared: “I think the greatest terrorist threat to the homeland is the homegrown violent extremist... which is jihadist-inspired violence.”
You do not have to look far to find such threats. On July 3rd, in one of the most prominent mosques in one of America’s largest cities, prayer leader Tariq Mahmoud openly declared his dream of violent jihad, using rhetoric that has long plagued Boston's “oldest continually operating” mosque: the Mosque for the Praising of Allah.
In his khutbah, Mahmoud explores the role of jihad in the modern day. Treading lightly at first, he distinguishes the two types of jihad – the “struggle” expected of every Muslim. One jihad is the struggle with the self to avoid sacrilegious temptations and behaviors; the other jihad is the more familiar, violent form: “jihad with the weapons, jihad against other people… as well.”
Initially, this rhetoric could be a sign of moderation. However, Mahmoud quickly exposes his underlying ideals. According to Mahmoud, as the caliphate, a precondition for violent jihad, exists no more, there can be no “jihad for us here in America. There is no physical jihad… we have many steps to go before that is ever established again.”
Rather than celebrating jihad’s status as a personal struggle and advocating a nonviolent interpretation of Islam, he instead expresses regret that the violent form of jihad is not currently an option. While Mahmoud advocates for jihad of the self, he does so hoping that it will eventually enable the Muslim World to revive violent jihad as an option. Pay careful attention to Mahmoud’s language:
“The jihad of yourself comes by means of truth, and we have to start here, and I’m not negating… I already started the khutbah by telling you about the jihad with the weapons. You’re never gonna get there, and we’ll never get there, and there’ll never be that again, unless we change what is in ourselves, unless you control yourself” [27:50].
He continues to affirm his desire for a supranational theocracy, or caliphate, ranting against the current world order dominated by countries and their “borders,” an inherent impediment to the caliphate’s prospects of revival. Hence, Mahmoud slams the nation-state, instead urging reunification throughout the Muslim world, a quality necessary for a caliphate. He observes, “Every Muslim now has been infected with the disease of the West, of nationalism. Everyone’s happy with their borders, happy with their flag…Everyone’s separated when we’re meant to be one” [29:10].
The mosque has a long history of ties to extremism and controversy. Its imam, Abdullah Faaruuq, has praised terrorists and encouraged violence. He previously championed Al-Qaeda operative Aafia Siddiqui—who plotted a chemical attack on New York City and sought to murder FBI agents in Afghanistan—as a “brave woman” and even solicited donations on her behalf. Faaruuq also defended Al Qaeda supporter Tarek Mehanna as he was “awaiting trial on terrorism charges.” And following their arrests, he encouraged violence, urging Muslims to “grab onto the gun and the sword.” Both Siddiqui and Mehanna are now serving 86-year and seventeen-and-a-half year prison sentences respectively.
In 2017, Faaruuq bashed America as the “land of the coward and the home of the slave,” declaring Islam as “America’s future,” while also demanding, “Submit to the will of God or this country will fail.”
Faaruuq and Mahmoud’s remarks are not the mosque’s only ties to such rhetoric. Last year, it hosted a fundraiser with Siraj Wahhaj, a “sharia-supremacist imam” who has referred to America as a “garbage can.” Federal prosecutors once listed Wahhaj as a potential co-conspirator “in a terrorism plot that included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.”
With its preachers endorsing violent jihad, terrorists, and anti-Americanism, it might come as a surprise that one of the mosque’s past fundraisers was titled, “A Better America.” Seven years after an Islamist attack in Boston that killed three and injured 264, what sort of America do they want for us? More importantly, if we continue to neglect the long-proven, serious threat of Islamist extremism, what sort of America will we get?
Jordan Cope is a writer for Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum
A man has appeared in court in connection with a suspected terror plot. Sahayb Aweys Munye Abu of Mayfield Road, Dagenham, appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court via video link on Friday, July 24.
Abu was charged on Thursday with engaging in the preparation of terrorist acts, under section five of the Terrorism Act 2006.
He was taken into custody in an operation by the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command on June 9 along with another man and a teenager. A third man was arrested by policed in Leicestershire. All the others were later released without charge after being detained for at least a week. Police searched two addresses in east London, but haven’t released any more details of where the men were arrested.
The court heard the 27-year-old is accused of purchasing or attempting to purchase items for the use in terrorism with intent before July 9 this year. . .Deputy chief magistrate, Tan Ikram, sent the case to be dealt with at the crown court.
Mr Abu will appear at the Old Bailey on August 14.
The people’s enemies must be dealt with by measures of whatever severity is required to end this intolerable state of lawlessness.
by Conrad Black
The showdown is coming over urban violence in America. The continuing rioting and destruction erupting in new cities every few days is almost certain to provide yet another profound demarcation of opinion over how to govern the United States and address the problems that have so stirred the country since the killing of African American George Floyd by a white Minneapolis policeman on May 25. America’s toleration of a completely unjustifiable level of general violence compared to anything in its past demonstrates considerable progress in civility and restraint in the past 50 years.
In 1968, the legendary mayor of Chicago, Richard J. Daley, attracted great controversy but not majority disapproval when he publicly told his police not to hesitate to fire live ammunition at violent demonstrators and rioters. As the immense disturbances surrounding the Democratic National Convention in that city evolved, the mayor indicated that he was not exactly urging his officers to shoot to kill but to shoot to stop the rioting, and implicitly, not to be overly concerned if some lawbreakers died as a result.
There was widespread support for this position. Eleven people were killed, about 500 injured, and more than 2,150 arrested in Chicago; four months earlier, in the riots in at least nine major cities after the assassination of Martin Luther King, 43 were killed, more than 3,000 injured, and over 20,000 arrested.
The disturbances at the 1968 convention were prompted more by anti-Vietnam War militancy than by racial factors, and the principal accused ringleaders were biracial and multicultural. The Democratic convention rightly took some pride in the advances it had secured in the term of outgoing President Lyndon Johnson, who did not attend the convention, in assuring civil and voting rights for African-Americans, and for the extensive Great Society welfare and workfare programs adopted to assist all underprivileged Americans.
In the ensuing Nixon Administration the policy of Vietnamization (handing the ground war over to heavily trained and well-equipped South Vietnamese and other Asian allies, especially the South Koreans, with—when appropriate—massive air support from the United States) sharply reduced American casualties and effectively almost eliminated draft calls for combat roles. It also appeared to be militarily successful, especially in the South Vietnamese defeat of the great North Vietnamese and Vietcong ground offensive of April 1972. In the absence of casualties and in contemplation of a possibly successful extrication from such a difficult war, Americans would not generally engage in or condone violent demonstrations, and they tapered off.
The Fires This Time
In the 50 years since American withdrawal from Vietnam, mob violence has been sporadic. There was severe racial violence over the acquittal of the police who were caught on video beating African American Rodney King in Los Angeles in 1992, resulting in 63 dead, nearly 2,400 injured and over 12,000 arrests and over $1 billion of property damage. The Ferguson, Missouri riots in 2014 and 2015, over the shooting of young African American Michael Brown by police action, caused 16 injuries and 321 arrests. And in Baltimore in 2015, the death of African-American Freddy Gray at the hands of police caused rioting in which 116 people were injured and 486 arrested.
These incidents did not spread significantly to other communities. If that pattern had been followed this year after the release of the nauseating video of a policeman effectively strangling George Floyd by applying his knee to his neck while other officers suggested he desist, the rioting that followed would have been confined to Minneapolis.
But police abandoned a precinct station, effectively inciting widespread destructive rioting, much of it well organized by heavily armed vandals, arsonists, and pillagers, and the destructive violence was replicated in dozens of cities. Spokespeople volunteered that the Floyd killing was a convenient pretext for an assault upon the whole concept of the United States as a just or even creditable country.
Resentment of widespread police mistreatment of African-Americans is deep-seated and substantially justified. There have been great efforts to improve police training, to elevate African-American officers including many of the chiefs of police of the country’s largest cities, and there can be little doubt that the abrasive relationship between the black community and police had significantly improved.
But with many millions of encounters every year between police and blacks, it is a perpetual tinderbox, and there is no doubt that this is a genuine grievance and a serious failing in American law enforcement that has required an unconscionable length of time to address with adequate determination and thoroughness.
Whitewashing Leftist Violence
Now we have an additional element. The country had a glimpse of the militant wing of Black Lives Matter (BLM) with the murder of eight white policemen in Dallas and Baton Rouge in 2016. It had a further glimpse of the antics of BLM and the trained and masked street hooligan Antifa (“anti-fascist,” but a fair replication in fact), with the opposition of the ragtag of neo-Nazis and Klansmen that still fester in parts of the old South at Charlottesville in 2017 over a statue of General Robert E. Lee.
Antifa originally reared its head in ferocious violence in 2017 against an authorized Trump rally in Portland, Oregon, and in an anarchic destructive outburst, also in 2017 at the Berkeley campus of the University of California. Liberal America was extremely slow to grasp the proportions of this threat. Even then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned that Antifa leaders should be prosecuted.
But the most vapid and reflexive liberal Left greeted Antifa as energetic new opponents of the Trump regime; Christopher Cuomo on CNN said Antifa were “idealists.” There were similar apologia across the Trump-hating media, where any opponent of the president, no matter how extreme or despicable, is embraced.
Such is the vitriolic hatred of President Trump in what normally would be respectable liberal democratic circles, in official positions, and in the media that they are having almost terminal difficulty denouncing appropriately the murderous violence of many of the current “peaceful protesters.”
The rioters trying to burn down the federal courthouse in Portland for 60 consecutive nights routinely have been represented as a benign group of angry “moms” locking arms to object to racial violence. Much of the American media has lastingly disgraced itself by the scandalous misrepresentation of anti-white racist urban guerrillas as benign seekers of traditional reform.
We cannot now be far from the point where the country will have to choose between intelligent law enforcement with a redoubled urgency to the avoidance of racial oppression in even a single case, and continuation of this insufferable pusillanimous drivel that the problem is the presence of federal agents to execute the president’s constitutional duty of protecting federal property and enforcing the laws of the nation.
Trump, it is said, must “bring us together.” Violent and irreconcilable enemies of the constitutionally established government do not wish to be brought together. Those disposed to constructive compromise must be separated from the criminally violent enemies of the state, and therefore of the American people, who created the state. The people’s enemies must be dealt with by measures of whatever severity is required to end this intolerable state of lawlessness.
The Native Americans were here first; they had Reservations. Oklahoma where the wind comes sweeping down the plain. We’ll have Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island too.
A statue of a Native American woman by a Chiricahua sculptor, Allan Houser, stands outside the Oklahoma State Capitol; another bronze statue, one of an Indian warrior is on the dome. No doubt they were inwardly smiling with the announcement on July 9, 2020 of the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of McGirt v. Oklahoma. The inherent argument is over the nature of the power possessed by Native Americans in their Reservations, and whether that power can be considered “sovereign” even if that power does not approximate the definition by Thomas Hobbes of complete monopoly of power in a particular geographical area.
The case is fascinating, combining historical, legal, and political factors, questions of jurisdictional powers, and differences over interpretation of U.S. law, whether from an originalist and textualist, or intentionalist and living constitutionalist point of view. The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, section 8 grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. Though the federal government has the duty to protect the tribes, it is Congress, not the executive or judicial branches of the U.S. system, that has ultimate authority affecting the tribes.
By a number of U.S. treaties those federally recognized tribes, now called nations, have the right to form their own government, enforce laws within their lands, protect their own people, tax, manage their own funds, and exclude persons from tribal lands. As result tribes possess a nationhood status. Today there are 5.2 million American Indians, and Alaska Native people and 573 federally recognized Indian nations. In addition, there are unrecognized Nations and indigenous communities. In the state of Oklahoma there are 39 tribal Nations, 19 of which are federally recognized.
The U.S. signed 370 treaties with many Native Nations between 1778 and 1871. Most of them guaranteed peace, defined land boundaries, preserved hunting and fishing rights, and proved protection against domestic and foreign enemies. The Tribes generally retained all internal governmental authority on issues such as education, health care, and housing. In recent years there is a more insistent call for total self-determination.
In the case on July 9, 2020, the SC by a 5-4 decision held that the land in northeastern Oklahoma reserved for the Creek Nation since the treaty of 1833 and the treaty of 1866 remains an Indian reservation, at least for purposes of federal criminal law. The land had been officially recognized by Congress as Indian territory and home to the Five Civilized Tribes. Congress declared Oklahoma a state in 1906, but denied the establishment of the Indian territory as a separate state.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the 5-4 majority, rather surprisingly rendered a textualist reading of the legal history of the rights of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. He held the treaty of 1866 guaranteed the Creek Nation the “quiet possession of their country.” The case was a reminder of the tragic events in the 1830s when a number of tribes, about 125,000 Native Americans, were forcibly removed from their homelands in the southeast where their ancestors had lived for generations to walk more than 500 miles to land west of the Mississippi River to what is now eastern Oklahoma. During this walk, the Trail of Tears, an estimated 3,500 of the Creek, Muscogee tribe died.
On this event, Gorsuch was eloquent. “On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever… those lands remain under the control of the Native American Reservations for purposes of federal criminal law. The state of Oklahoma, he held, does not have authority to undertake criminal cases involving Native Americans, since they are subject to federal jurisdiction. Because Congress has not said otherwise the government should be held to its word, that the Major Crimes Act 1885 gave to federal authorities not to states jurisdiction over serious crimes committed by or against Native Americans in their own territories.
How was power allocated, and does the allocation remain in the U.S. federal system? The Gorsuch argument concerning Oklahoma is that the land granted to the Native Americans over 170 years ago retains its status as belonging to the tribal Reservation, because no act of Congress has dissolved the Creek Tribe or disestablished its Reservation. No statute exists that has terminated that status, nor terminated the Reservation. States have no authority to reduce federal arrangements with Native Americans within the tribal borders.
In 2019 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th circuit ruled that the state of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute a murder case of had happened within the three million acres belonging to the Muscogee, Creek Nation. This was followed in 2020 when the SC held that the state courts in Oklahoma had no jurisdiction to convict Jimcy McGirt, a member of the Seminole Nation, of sexual offences, raping a four year old child in 1996, that took place on the Creek Reservation. McGirt appealed his conviction, arguing that prosecution by the state was invalid because his offence had been committed within the territory of the Creek Reservation. According to the 1871 statute it is a federal, rather than state, crime to commit a serious offence in the territory of the U.S.
Neil Gorsuch, a Westerner originally from Colorado, had been a judge on the Denver based 10th Circuit and had ruled in favor of tribal rights to govern their own affairs and upheld their right to their land. On appointment to the SC, he hired a member of the Chickasaw nation as a clerk. Gorsuch held that Congress had broken more than a few of its promises to the Creek nation.
A major difference in the SC centered on the history of the Creek Reservation since it has been largely unknown for the past century, that a considerable part of the territory of Oklahoma is actually a Creek Indian reservation. Chief Justice John Roberts, dissenting, held that a century of practice in Oklahoma confirmed that the prior domains of the Creek Tribe were extinguished, that the state has maintained unquestioned jurisdiction for more than 100 years, and that the SC decision might lead to similar results in the other four Oklahoma tribal territories. This consequence would produce uncertainty and chaos for all parts of government, including verdicts in previous trials by the state, that touch on Indian affairs.
The controversial issue remains. Can the state of Oklahoma prosecute Native Americans accused of major crimes by Indians in Indian territory or are such offenses, according to the Major Crimes Act of 1885 solely matters of federal jurisdiction? The dispute rests on whether the Creek Reservation, about 3 million acres and part of the city of Tulsa had been disestablished by Congress when Oklahoma was admitted to the U.S. in 1907.
McGirt’s case rested on the argument that his serious offense was carried out in Indian country, involved Native Americans, and therefore should have been tried in federal not state court. The Creek Reservation never ceased to exist and so he was tried in the wrong court.
The irony in all this case is twofold. One is the fact the 71 year old McGirt can get a new trial in a federal court. The second is the possibility that many others who have been convicted in Oklahoma state cases can have the same outcome and can appeal to the federal court. Justice Gorsuch admitted the potential for cost and conflict around the jurisdictional boundaries. Is it an idle hope that with passing time the federal government, the state and the tribes can work together successful as partners in criminal matters as well as in other areas?
The McGirt case may lead to other developments, ending neglect of some controversial issues. According to the Fort Laramie peace treaty of 1868 the Black Hills were to be set aside for use and occupation of the Sioux Nation, Lakota, Nakota, Dakota peoples. But after gold was found the U.S. military entered the area and Mount Rushmore was built. The U.S. illegally took tribal land in the Black Hills. The Sioux were offered compensation but refused and demand the return of their land.
Perhaps the U.S. might follow the Canadian example, and acknowledge history. The Royal Ontario Museum acknowledges that “this museum sits on what has been the ancestral lands of the Wendat (and other nations) since time immemorial to today.”
More generally is the impact of the McGirk case on guiding principles for the Supreme Court to examine legislation and law. It must decide whether using extratextual evidence is allowing the states and the courts to usurp the work of Congress. Should courts follow the theory of originalism or one of judicial restraint?
The late Anwar Shaikh, a scholar of Islam who lived in the West, argued in his Islam: The Arab National Religion that Islam has always been a “vehicle for Arab supremacism.” It’s not hard to see how he came to that conclusion. The Qur’an, after all, was delivered to an Arab, and in his language. The Qur’an ideally should be read, recited, and memorized, in the original Arabic. Muslims prostrate themselves in prayer five times a day, always turned toward Mecca, in Arabia. If they can afford it, Muslims should at least once in their lives make the hajj to that same Arabian city of Mecca. So great is the prestige of the Arabs in Islam that non-Arab Muslims, especially converts, frequently adopt Arab names. Many Muslims, too, especially in Pakistan, add the honorific “Sayid,” indicating — falsely — that they are descended from the Quraysh, the tribe of the Prophet.
Recently a Jordanian Member of Parliament and former cabinet minister, Mohammed Nouh Qudah, spoke in a television interview about the superiority of Arabs to all others. His story is here at memri.org. He said:
When the Arabs received Islam, it came with the idea that they are the masters of the world. Today, some people want us to manufacture planes, cars, and trains and then compete with Europe and America, but this is not the purpose for which we were created. When Allah created us as ‘peoples and tribes’ [as the Quran says], He endowed us Arabs with thought and guidance and He created the other peoples as students who follow our guidance. They are the ones who should work. This way, our thought and their work complement each other, and this is how the world is built. This is why God said in the Quran: ‘…and We raised some of them above others in ranks.
Since “the Arabs” have not shown any ability to “manufacture planes, cars, and trains” or to compete with either the West, or the East, in building a modern economy, MP Mohammed Nouh Qudah has a soothing explanation. The Arabs were never supposed to work. They are too good for that. They will provide “guidance” to all the other, inferior peoples, for “they [the non-Arabs] are the ones who should work.” It’s a perfect combination.
We are the masters of the world. I’m not saying this out of a sense of superiority. No, no. I say this as a way to put things in order. This is why God sent the message to the Arab nation. He instilled in the Arabs traits of leadership that He did not bestow upon others. I say to my brothers who watch us from Europe, America, or elsewhere: Go to any school, where there are children. Look at the way the children move, and you will notice that the Arab children are different from the children from the rest of the world. It shows! Take them on a trip, and you will see that the Arab children are different. This is not about castes, about racism, or about discrimination. I am talking about traits and different genes.
Not since the heyday of Hitler, with the Nazis singing the praises of the pure Aryan race, has there been such a claim of racial superiority. “We are the masters of the world.” How does this differ from Hitler’s message? For “Aryan,” read “Arab.” But Mohammad Nouh Qudah doesn’t want to be misunderstood. He doesn’t make this claim “out of a sense of superiority.” No, not at all. But he has merely fulfilled his solemn duty to tell the truth, to make sure everything is “put in order.” No need for mental chaos or confusion. We Arabs are too modest. We need to recognize that we are born leaders. We provide “guidance” to all other peoples. We have traits of leadership in our genes that no other people possesses. Just look at our leaders throughout history. True, the Mongols conquered us, and then so did the Ottomans, and finally the Europeans, but we have thrown over all those yokes, and now we lead the world.
Why, just look at what we have accomplished in Libya, Syria, Yemen. Look at the advances we have made, harnessing the world’s “workers” to create endlessly rich and vibrant societies under our permanent guidance. Just look at our unrivaled advances in the 22 Arab states, and compare those with any group of 22 Western states, those backward lands in Europe and North America that continue to claim that they are the civilized ones! We have always been in the lead in every field – in art, literature, science, philosophy, political thought. Our Arab authors are translated and studied throughout the world. Our universities are the best in the world. If Arabs have not received their fair share of Nobel Prizes in science – they have two – that is only because of the extreme envy and resentment of the Arabs by the Scandinavians who select the recipients. There is no need to mention our achievements by name; the whole world knows what we have accomplished, and is quite literally dumbstruck with admiration. There was a report some years ago, by some U.N. group, which said – as if it were an embarrassment – that Spain translated more works in a single year than the Arabs had done in their entire history. But there’s a very good explanation for that. Spain needed to translate so many books because it had such a deep need to learn from others; its own culture became so impoverished when the Arabs were expelled. Why don’t we translate more? Isn’t the answer obvious? It has nothing to to do with a lack of curiosity. We Arabs, with our natural genetic superiority, produce all the intellectual literature, in every field, that we need. We simply have no felt need to rely on translations from non-Arabs. We have our mental riches, ever-expanding, right here at home, in the vastness of our lands from Morocco to the Gulf, produced by our own people, written in our own language.
There are so many examples of this Arab leadership, this natural superiority, this inherent right to guide and lead others while all those others must do the world’s work. Think of Qatar. The Qatari Arabs, like the other Gulf Arabs, represent the purest strain of “Arab,” with no admixture of Turkish, Persian, Berber, Jewish, African, or European blood. Only 12% of the population are Qatari Arabs. The other 88% are a mixture of every kind of human. It is they who do all the work, while the Qatari Arabs, recognizing that leisure is the basis of culture, cultivate their minds. And what do we see? We see Qatari literary works that astonish the world, Qatari artistic creations that fill the world’s museums and enthrall so many visitors and collectors, Qatari music that enchants audiences everywhere. And much the same glorious outcome can be observed in Saudi Arabia, where the leisured Saudi Arabs lead deeply cultivated lives, made possible by the work of so many hard-working foreigners, and produce immortal Saudi literary works, Saudi works of art, Saudi symphonies. That is as it should be. It is in our genes.
I don’t say that out of any particular sense of superiority. After all, none of us is responsible for our genes. If we Arabs have all been blessed by Allah with a superior genetic makeup, we should be not boastful – we had nothing to do with our genes – but humbly grateful for this state of affairs. In the same way, we should not despise non-Arabs for their genes, that make them fit only to be workers, not creators, nor “guiders” of men. They did nothing to deserve that; for them too, it’s purely a matter of heredity. None of us can go against the will of Allah. All of us must accept our station.
Hisham Muhammad, 26, allegedly built a “release mechanism” for a commercial drone while researching other methods including knife attacks.
The Old Bailey heard that police found a “variety of bladed articles”, components, drawings, notes, camouflage clothing and masks at his home in Bury, Greater Manchester. Muhammad allegedly possessed weapons including a tomahawk, machete, “bear claws” (photograph left) and two axes, and had practiced stabbing movements on cardboard boxes and clothing.
The defendant, who moved to the UK in 2013, is also accused of creating “ninja eggs” containing chilli and glass shards that could be used to “incapacitate or otherwise weaken” attack victims or emergency service responders.
Opening the prosecution case on Tuesday, Anne Whyte QC said: “Muhammad, who was, by all accounts a very polite man, was focusing on what he considered to be his obligation as a Muslim to act and to please his notion of his God by conducting an attack.”
Some of the weapons were allegedly paid for by money gained through a bogus escort agency set up by Muhammad and his cousin, where customers were asked for an upfront payment as a “gesture of goodwill”. Ms Whyte alleged that money paid into fraudulently opened accounts was used to purchase items “relevant” to the case, including “axes, face masks and knife-sharpening stones”.
The court heard that in May 2018, Muhammad expressed a “false interest” in joining the British army in order to visit the Castle Armoury Barracks in Bury and that he had also searched military and armed police bases online.
The alleged plot was uncovered after Muhammad’s home was visited by his landlord in June 2018, because he had fallen behind on rent. Onkar Singh said he felt “uneasy” after spotting items including knives, a tub with wires and a soldering iron and took photos that he later showed to police.
Muhammad, of Victoria Avenue in Bury, denies engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism. His cousin Faisal Abu Ahmad, 25, of the same address, denies failing to alert authorities of the alleged attack plan.
Pakistani Muslim accused of insulting Islam killed in court
PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) — A young Pakistani Muslim walked into a courtroom in the northwestern city of Peshawar on Wednesday and shot and killed a fellow Muslim who was on trial for blasphemy, a police officer said.
It was not immediately clear how the assailant, identified as Khalid Khan, managed to get into the court amid tight security. The attacker was subsequently arrested.
The man on trial, Tahir Shamim Ahmad, had claimed he was Islam’s prophet and was arrested two years ago on blasphemy charges, according to Azmat Khan, the police officer. Ahmad died before he could be transported to hospital.
Domestic and international human rights groups say blasphemy allegations have often been used to intimidate religious minorities and settle personal scores. . . crowds and individuals in Pakistan often take the law into their own hands.
The Five Burning Questions of This Election Season
The Democratic Party’s platform consists of the exploitation of public COVID-19 hysteria, the creation of lawless urban chaos, Marxist economic redistribution, and the embrace of unlimited illegal immigration.
by Conrad Black
The presidential election result is now down to five questions.
Can the president override the Democratic media’s thunderous campaign to terrorize the country over the coronavirus?
Can the president successfully connect Joe Biden’s campaign to the hooligans, anti-white racists, and urban guerrillas who effectively are being encouraged by the corrupt Democratic mayors of many of the nation’s largest cities?
Will the economic recovery and the decline in the unemployment generated by the COVID-19 shutdown continue at its recent pace and strengthen the economy as a pro-Trump electoral argument?
Will special counsel John Durham indict senior members of the Obama Administration over their handling of the spurious allegation of collusion between Donald Trump and the Russian government in the 2016 election and Justice Department violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and how will Biden himself come through it?
Apart from the Durham question, the president has it in his power to produce answers favorable to himself on the other four questions.
Trump’s Coronavirus Record
He has a very defensible record in his handling of COVID-19, was prescient in restricting direct air travel from China and Europe to the United States (which the Democrats opposed), and cooperated even with governors who had been extremely antagonistic prior to the pandemic. He sought and accepted the guidance of leading epidemiologists in taking drastic measures to “flatten the curve,” and he showed evident executive ability in quickly developing world-leading coronavirus testing capacity and supplying essential equipment throughout the country.
Trump has been represented as cavalier about the virus itself—a perception problem that has arisen due to his efficient response and move to reopen the economy more quickly than the Democrats, who had hoped that they could prolong the shutdown until the election in order to blame the president for the resulting economic depression.
The president effectively declared victory and sponsored a back-to-work movement and the Democrats have responded by using their iron-fisted control of the national political media to portray the president as cruel and incompetent, while they espouse a completely fatuous policy of indefinite lockdown, colossal emergency income substitution from the treasury, mass testing and tracing of everyone that has been in recent contact with those who test positive and badgering them to self-quarantine.
It is absurd. The president moved on Tuesday to counter this campaign in his first coronavirus press meeting for many weeks. He was businesslike and effective. What is needed is a full-scale public relations campaign including news film of the president at key distribution sites and medical centers. Excessive staging and histrionics must be avoided, and the reduction in fatality rates, improvement in techniques for protecting the immunity-challenged, and administration of therapeutics should all be emphasized—it being understood that 90 percent of the national political media will go to extraordinary lengths to deny the president credit for anything. At some point, there should be a backlash in the president’s favor to this heavy press bias.
Urban violence, defunding police, and the balance between curbing police mistreatment of African Americans and doing everything reasonably responsible to discourage and punish crime, have now become a great chicken game.
The president has already begun to taint the Democratic Party by identification with notoriously corrupt and incompetent Democratic civic political machines. The Democrats have governed in Chicago for 89 years. Their ethics and competence have been in decline for decades and latterly in freefall, and the present mayor, Lori Lightfoot, is a racist and a seeming idiot. The Jussie Smollett case was a vivid depiction of the venality of the Chicago Democrats; they are so rotten it is a wonder that the roofs are still on the public buildings.
In New York City, the surrealistically inept Mayor Bill de Blasio has squandered almost everything his distinguished predecessors Rudolph Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg accomplished. Eric Garcetti in Los Angeles, Ted Wheeler in Portland, and Jenny Durkan in Seattle are all hopeless and the last two, as well as Chicago’s Lightfoot, effectively have sided with rioters and arsonists against their own police departments.
Parts of Chicago and New York are just 360-degree shooting galleries as the demoralized and defunded police essentially have given up, and murder rates have skyrocketed. The president will have to judge when it is better to exercise his constitutional duty to defend federal government property and ensure the enforcement of the nation’s laws than it is to allow the sanguinary spectacle of the disintegration of municipal government in some of the nations great cities to illuminate the depths of Democratic urban decay and hypocrisy.
The Economy and Unemployment
As the country awaits the president’s timing in these matters, there is no reason to doubt that unemployment will continue to descend quickly.
A huge amount of new demand has been injected into the system by relief measures and people prefer employment to unemployment, a preference further economic assistance measures should encourage.
The Democratic pantomime of posing as the chief enemies of the coronavirus rather than its political beneficiary, and as the authors of emergency job or replacement schemes more remunerative than work itself cannot last much longer.
There is no need until after Labor Day to paint too vividly the implications of the “progressive” unity agreement between presumptive Democratic nominee Biden and Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders. It should be a strong argument in September and October, especially the intended elimination of the oil, gas, and coal industries and their 7 million jobs, the destruction of the southern border wall the president has been building, the reopening of the United States to unlimited illegal entry, the enactment of a substantial part of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s infamous $52 trillion healthcare plan, sharp income tax increases and likely a wealth tax.
Important to note, too, is their intentional strangling of the American ethos of self-advancement through hard work and merit as well as their push for the destruction of independent schools in order to reinforce the monopoly of the strictly Democratic teachers’ unions. The hope of these Democrats is to impose more of the slothful philistinism and the largely anti-American current spirit of American schools and universities. Lazy and unpatriotic Americans tend to look toward Democrats for salvation.
Joe Biden is an implausible candidate; the Democratic Party has disgraced itself by its reliance on pestilence and racist mobs, and its platform consists of exploitation of public COVID-19 hysteria, the creation of lawless urban chaos while blaming it on Trump, a Marxist economic redistribution, and the embrace of unlimited undocumented immigration.
A Democratic Party victory would cripple the free market, strangle the American tradition of earned upward mobility, buy votes with unprecedented cynicism and extravagance, and entrench a regime of socialist wealth redistribution which has never attracted significant public support anywhere in the United States.
Only the dementia of fanatical Trump-haters and the almost airtight political bigotry of the national political media have permitted this levitation to continue as long as it has. It will not make it to Election Day.
What do we know about Qatar? We know that it is the only Gulf Arab country that is well-disposed toward the terror state of Iran. And it is also a stout supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. The leading ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood is Yousef al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian-born cleric who spews his antisemitic and anti-Infidel venom from his secure base in Qatar. Qatar funds the antisemitic and anti-Western television broadcaster and on-line newspaper, Al Jazeera, which is a major source of biased news about the Middle East. It is in Qatar that the former Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, reputed to have stolen between $2.5 and $5 billion from aid meant for the Palestinians, now makes his home. The Qataris themselves can afford to be largely indolent; 88% of the population of Qatar consists of foreigners who do all the work in the emirate; the Qataris are waited on hand-and-foot, from cradle to grave. Their fabulous wealth, based on reserves of natural gas, is the result not of hard work or entrepreneurial flair, but of an accident of geology.
Qatar’s support for both Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood has angered many of its neighbors. Between 5 and 6 June 2017, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Yemen, Egypt, the Maldives, and Bahrain all separately broke relations with Qatar. Since then, Saudi Arabia, the UEA, Egypt, and Bahrain have instituted a land, sea, and air blockade of Qatar. They had hoped to change Qatar’s policy toward Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, but so far there has been no visible effect.
Qatar is also the site of the largest American military base in the Middle East, the Al Udeid airbase, which houses about 11,000 servicemen. It is apparently the desire to hold onto that base that has prevented the American government from reading Qatar the riot act for its support of Iran, Hamas, the Islamic State. But with Qatar’s financial support of Hezbollah now having been revealed, it’s time for the American government to rethink its indulgent attitude toward the mendacious emirate.
Here is the story about Qatar’s support for Hezbollah:
A German private security contractor, who has worked for the federal republic’s intelligence and security services, leveled bombshell allegations against Qatar’s regime, stating Doha finances the US and EU-designated terrorist movement Hezbollah and has declared Jews to be the enemies of the tiny Gulf state.
The German weekly news outlet Die Zeit first reported on Friday about the security contractor Jason G. who obtained explosive details about Qatari terror finance.
In Doha, G. came across some unsavory information. There was an alleged arms deal with war munitions from Eastern Europe that was supposed to be handled by a company in Qatar. And there were alleged money flows from several rich Qataris and exiled Lebanese people from Doha to Hezbollah – the organization that is part of the government in Lebanon but is internationally outlawed as a terrorist organization and has been banned in Germany since April. The donations are said to have been processed with the knowledge of influential government officials through a charity organization in Doha,” wrote the veteran Zeit journalists Yassin Musharbash and Holger Stark.
The paper added that “a thick dossier with compromising material emerged, which Zeit was able to see in parts and which is somewhat explosive: Israel and the USA have long been trying to dry out [the finances of] Hezbollah. Concrete evidence that money is flowing from the Gulf to terrorist groups would increase pressure on Qatar and may lead to sanctions.”
G. met with Michael Inacker, who works for the German public relations company WMP, and is well connected to a top Qatari diplomat who was not named in the article. WMP also did work for Qatar’s regime….
The paper reported that “according to Jason G., because of Inacker’s mediation, there were half a dozen meetings between G. and the Qatari diplomat.”
Die Zeit further wrote that “according to G., ugly comments about Israel had also been made at one of the meetings, the [Qatari]diplomat said that they had learned from the ground up that the Jews were their enemies.”…
G. said he received € 10,000 a number of times from Qatar’s diplomat, including an additional € 100,000 over a period of months.
The paper reported that Qatar’s regime offered G. € 750,000 in exchange for remaining silent about his knowledge of Qatar’s financing of Hezbollah….
Die Zeit wrote that “neither the government of the Emirate nor the Qatari ambassador in Berlin want to comment on the details, a government spokesman from Doha merely says that Qatar ‘plays a central role in international efforts to combat terrorism and extremism in the Middle East.’ The country has ‘strict laws to prevent private terrorism from being financed,’ and anyone caught doing so will be punished with all the harshness of the law.”
Yet, Qatar has long been accused of financing terrorism in the Middle East. The monarchy state provides organizational space to the the US and EU-designated terrorist movement Hamas, as well as for the Taliban. Qatar has also built a strong alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran – the worst state-sponsor of global terrorism, according to both the Obama and Trump administrations.
In 2014, German Development Minister Gerd Mueller accused Qatar of financing Islamic State terrorists. “This kind of conflict, this kind of a crisis always has a history … The ISIS troops, the weapons – these are lost sons, with some of them from Iraq,” Mueller told German public broadcaster ZDF.
In 2014, the German government had evidence that Qatar was funding Islamic State terrorists. It surely shared this information with its NATO partners, especially with the American government, which continues not only to have diplomatic relations with a country that should be placed beyond the pale, but retains its military airbase Al Udeid in Qatar that provides the Emirate with a sense of security – of American protection – which it has done nothing to merit and to which it should not be entitled. There are many other places In the Middle East, including several places right on the Gulf, where American forces might instead be placed. There are five airbases in Saudi Arabia that the U.S. forces now at Al Udeid could transfer to, including two right on the Gulf. The Riyadh Airbase is in the middle of Saudi Arabia, from where planes could easily patrol the Arabian (quondam Persian) Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, the Saudi oil fields. There is the gigantic King Fahd Air Base – the largest in the world – at present an inactivated military airfield that currently is used for commercial and civilian flights. It holds the record for the largest and widest airport in the world, covering over 780 square km. It is located in the eastern part of the country, about 20 km away from Dammam. There would be no need to build it out further to handle military aircraft. And it is located in eastern Saudi Arabia, right next to the oilfields that Iran, and its Houthi proxies, have tried to damage.
There is also the possibility of establishing an air base in Oman. Oman is the most stable of Arab states. A majority of its population belong to the Ibadi sect of Islam, which keeps the Sunni-Shi’a enmity — so damaging elsewhere — from harming Oman’s domestic tranquility. It is pro-Western. It is well-disposed toward Israel. The late Sultan Qaboos invited Prime Minister Netanyahu for a cordial visit in 2018. The celebrated scholar of the Persian Gulf, who was also a former adviser to Sheih Zayed of Abu Dhabi, the late J. B.Kelly, always claimed that the best site, the natural site, for an American air base in the Gulf region was in Oman, and he didn’t understand why so little interest was displayed for this idea. He did note that Oman, unlike all the other Gulf Arab states, did not have a small army of lobbyists working for it in Washington. “In fact,” Kelly once told me, “I don’t think they had even one.”
A third site for an American air base – to replace Al Udeid in Qatar — might be found is in the Sinai. The Israelis built three modern bases in the Sinai; they would need some improvements but are otherwise ready for the Americans to move in. Nothing would need to be built from scratch. The neighbors on both sides – Egypt and Israel – would welcome a reassuring American presence. From a base in the Sinai American planes could monitor conflicts, and project airpower, across the Red Sea to Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, all the way down to Oman and the Gulf of Oman, and in the west, cover Egypt and much of the Maghreb.
“You have to ask who is arming, who is financing ISIS troops. The keyword there is Qatar – and how do we deal with these people and states politically?” said [German Development Minister] Mueller.
An American withdrawal from its airbase in Qatar would be a good start. It would provide a salutary lesson, for Qatar itself and for others who might consider themselves sufficiently valuable to American security – as Qatar now does – that they can get away with supporting terror states and terror groups. They must be disabused of this belief. Qatar has managed so far to be protected by an implicit American security blanket (the Al Udeid airbase), and yet still manages to support terrorists. But with the latest revelations about Doha’s support for Hezbollah, possibly it won’t get away with this for much longer.
Tommy Robinson: Far right campaigner has relocated his family to Spain after safety concerns
I don't agree with the epithet "far-right", I'd say just not far wrong, but the rest of this report from The Scotsman is the least gloating of the mainstream news reports tonight.
Tommy Robinson, has announced that he has relocated his family to Spain after safety concerns due to an alleged arson incident.
In an online video, Mr Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, stated: “There’s something I haven’t told everyone… I had an incident quite a few weeks ago with an arson … I do have the video of everything but it was targeting my property, well not against my property, against my wife’s property and at that point we left the country straight away.
“And I’m looking at relocating my family which is pretty hard to do and especially with Covid because I couldn’t even get a hotel. Couldn’t even find a hotel. Obviously my wife has had enough of everything. Someone gave us somewhere to stay so we left the country.”
Mr Robinson also said that he would be unable to return for the demonstration that his organisation Heart of Oak was hosting due to the new quarantine rules regarding people travelling to the UK from Spain.
In the video, Mr Robinson claimed that the arson incident happened after “all the BLM stuff” adding “I think I know who it was.”
Earlier this month Muhammad Abdul Basir was remanded on bail t to face charges of threats to Tommy.
Muhammad Abdul Basir, 24, of Phipps Bridge Road in Mitcham, south-west London, is accused of posting videos online threatening the former EDL leader, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, causing him fear, on two occasions in September 2019.
Basir denied stalking and racially aggravated harassment when he appeared at Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court on Friday. He spoke during the short hearing to confirm his name, age and address, and to enter his pleas to the two charges.
The defendant's lawyer told the court there was a police bail condition regarding video postings naming Prince William, but there are no charges regarding those.
The thugs, whether in authority or not can try to silence one man, but it is increasingly hard to silence us all.
Our Girls Matter - rally to call for deportation of the Rochdale Three
The Mass ‘Deport The Rochdale 3’ rally in Parliament Square will kick off at 12.00 hours. Attendees are advised to follow social distancing rules and wear masks were possible amid COVID-19
A rally organised by Hearts of Oak and their partners Women Against Groomers, following the start of legal action against the Home Office earlier this year
The group told Politicalite: “When Abdul Rauf, Adil Khan and Abdul Aziz were convicted in 2012 of appalling and racist sexual offences against young Rochdale girls, then Home Secretary Theresa May said that they would be deported after serving their sentences.”
“This has developed cross-party support, with Andy Burnham, Labour Mayor of Manchester, Tony Lloyd, Labour MP for Rochdale, and Christ Chapman, Conservative MP for neighbouring Heywood & Middleton, all calling for the three groomers to be returned to Pakistan. ”
In May Hearts of Oak and Women Against Groomers commenced legal action against the Home Office to force them to deport the men.”
“They are now calling for people of all the UK’s ethnicities and cultural backgrounds to join them in Parliament Square on 1st August make a united and urgent call for the men to be put on a flight back to Pakistan”
Speakers including Reverend George Hargreaves, Carl Benjamin, Anne Marie Waters and Alan Craig will be attending. Tommy Robinson was expected to attend until the news this evening that he has taken his family abroad for their protection after an arson attack on a property owned by his wife (not the only threat he and his family have faced recently) and the new recent Covid 19 regulations will make it impossible for him to return and be available in time.