Saturday, 30 September 2017
Seek ye first the political kingdom

by Theodore Dalrymple

Kwame Nkrumah, the first president of independent Ghana, was known to have said, “Seek ye first the political kingdom.” Nkrumah sought and found it, and within a few years his formerly prospering country was bankrupt, obliged to spend several decades trying to recover from his short reign.

Within quite a range of circumstances, purely political action, however necessary it might sometimes be, does not produce the happy economic results expected of it. Prosperity for whole nations or large groups of people cannot simply be conjured by political fiat from a total economic product that already exists. The people themselves must have the attributes necessary to prosper; and no amount of political posturing by their leaders, whether they be self-appointed or democratically elected, will give them those attributes.

It is the thesis of Jason L. Riley’s short, bracing and eloquent polemic False Black Power? that America’s black political leaders, and their white liberal allies, have hindered rather than advanced the progress of America’s black population. Initially well-meaning policies have actually undermined the self-help ethos that was a striking characteristic of black culture in the century between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the so-called Great Society.

What these well-meaning policies caused is a culture of dependence, entitlement, and irresponsibility that certainly did not exist before, and is inimical to progress, to put it mildly. Yet black political leadership and their white political allies persist in believing, or at least in pretending they believe, that this disastrous culture is the direct and inevitable consequence of an apostolic succession, so to speak, of slavery, Jim Crow policies, and contemporary racial prejudice. Their prescription has therefore been political action to destroy not only the practical effects of prejudice (for example, through positive discrimination in employment and the establishment of quotas) but prejudice itself, through a reform of both language and thought. A New Man, long the dream of utopian totalitarians, will have to be created.

Against this, Riley, a columnist at the Wall Street Journal, succinctly marshals historical evidence. Riley counters the marked tendency to suppose that if event B occurred after event A, the former occurred because of the latter. Thus it is supposed that, if the proportion of blacks living in poverty, however defined, declined after the installation of the Great Society, and the numbers of middle class blacks increased, these had to be benefits accruing from the Great Society.

This argument reminds me of the almost universal assumption that if the homicide rate rose during Prohibition, it did so because  of Prohibition. I have never seen any reference to the fact that the homicide rate rose as fast in the years preceding Prohibition as during it, which suggests a less simple explanation of the rise. In other words, if Prohibition is to be condemned, it must be on other grounds.

Riley cites evidence to demonstrate that black progress was swifter before the mid-1960s than after it. This does not by itself show that the slowdown was caused by the politically inspired policies after the mid-1960s, but there is at least a plausible causative connection to account for it, and therefore in Riley’s case the argument is not just post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Though the black population was advancing in the years before the beginning of the Great Society, it was still poorer and less well-educated than the white population, and there was a considerable section to whom a life on welfare must have been a temptation and even an opportunity. At the same time, ideological attitudes to family life were changing in the wider society, even if, in practice, they were taken more seriously in the lower than the higher echelons of society in which they originated. Thus, the scene was set for a self-reinforcing culture (if that is the word for it) of economic dependency and family disintegration.

In a sense, however, Riley’s argument does not depend crucially on the historical evidence that he adduces. While I believe his evidence to be in essence correct, it will always be open to dispute, for no historical interpretation is ever final or so conclusive that it can never be challenged. It is always possible that new statistics will show that the reduction in the gap between black and white that Riley says occurred in the century between the end of the Civil War and 1965 did not actually occur.

But one is always where one is, not where one ought to have been if things in the past had been better. What remains indisputable is that the culture that has emerged, grown up, and been encouraged (or at least not discouraged) in the black neighborhoods of cities such as Chicago, Baltimore, Washington and Philadelphia, is inimical to progress of any kind. It follows from this that efforts to conjure progress or improvement by purely bureaucratic, administrative, or redistributionist fiat are doomed to time-wasting and expensive failure. In raising expectations that cannot be met, these efforts actually stoke the fires of conflict.

What is needed is something more akin to a religious revival than a government program, and this is only likely to happen if black leadership changes tack. The problem is, as a U.S. senator once said, that you can’t get a hog to slaughter itself.

Unfortunately, the liberal political establishment is like a stuck record (in the days of vinyl records). It cannot change without having to admit that its originally well-intentioned prescriptions were mistaken, for to do so would destroy its raison d’être and its whole outlook on the world. What started as a desire to do good has ended as a desire to feel good—a much stronger and more durable motive. In the process, liberals have duped millions into waiting for Godot.

The author is fair to President Obama, whose term in office was a great disappointment from the point of view of race relations. Being a politician, he had to please more than one constituency at a time, and therefore veered between cultural and structural explanations of the black malaise. Probably he was himself unsure. If he had gone all out for one or the other of the explanations, he risked losing votes. Unfortunately, truth does not lie halfway between itself and error.

Jason Riley has compressed a complex argument into a book of commendable brevity. One can only hope that it will be widely read.

Posted on 09/30/2017 7:58 AM by Theodore Dalrymple
Saturday, 30 September 2017
The War on Drugs has been lost. It's time to try something else

About 15 years ago, Portugal began treating drugs as a medical rather than mainly criminal problem. In that time, drug use has declined by 75 per cent

by Conrad Black

The principal initiative undertaken by the Trudeau government has been the legalization of marijuana under tight rules still being elaborated. I have had a good deal of exposure to the American policy of the so-called War on Drugs, from my time dealing with many pushers and users as students for secondary school matriculation when I was in prison in the United States. I had long been a skeptic about the War on Drugs, which has cost the United States over a trillion dollars and caused the imprisonment of more than two million people (but very few of the kingpins), all while illegal drug use has increased appreciably. The price of drugs has not risen much; supply has not been strained, despite increased use among a growing population.

It is an immense industry, largely in the hands of the most dangerous criminal gangs and syndicates at every stage of growth, refinement and transport. Mexico and Colombia have been conducting virtual civil wars with the drug gangs, and “drug-busts” in Mexico sometimes involve armoured vehicles and helicopters on both sides, and at one such occasion several years ago, after a two-day pitched battle, the gang-leader escaped in a submarine. The Colombian drug war entirely subsumed a long-running Marxist rural insurrection, which was effectively tucked under the wing of the drug cartel and has pursued its relatively quaint and pastoral ambitions with the bemused protection of the drug-lords. It has also become much easier to make drugs by assembling legally available medicines in the United States and blending and refining them carefully.

The War on Drugs in the United States has not been a war at all

The War on Drugs in the United States has not been a war at all. Of course, the greatest military power in the world could prevent drugs entering the country if it deployed military units along its borders and in air space adjacent to it in adequate force. The inspection system for incoming people by every method could be made much tighter, but that would require the deployment of far more personnel to prevent unreasonable delays for legitimate commerce and visitors. In practice, the “war” has consisted of putting bone-cracking pressure on Colombia and Mexico and leaving the U.S. borders relatively porous, while practically ignoring middle class and academic drug abuse and conducting endless trolls through poor Latin and African-American districts and inflicting draconian sentences on street-corner pushers who can easily be replaced and rarely include senior drug-dealers.

The result has been to increase the number of incarcerated people over 40 years in the United States by a multiple of five to six, at immense cost to the country (almost $100 billion dollars annually), without reducing drug use at all. The United States now has six to 12 times as many incarcerated people per capita as other flourishing large democracies (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom); conviction rates in prosecutions generally have risen from 70 per cent to 99 per cent, because of the tilting of criminal procedural rules in the prosecutions’ favour, and the endless drag-nets for street corner pushers in low-income areas. (The U.S. has five per cent of the world’s population and 25 per cent of its incarcerated people.) U.S. deaths from drugs last year were 64,000, compared to 40,000 deaths in automobile accidents and more than the total of all American military deaths for the last 65 years (including Vietnam and all Middle East conflicts where the U.S. has been engaged).

The result has been to increase the number of incarcerated people in the U.S. by a multiple of five to six

This intensified focus on drugs began about 45 years ago. About 15 years ago, Portugal embarked on a bold experiment in the same field, by treating drugs as a medical rather than mainly criminal problem. Dealers are still imprisoned when convicted, but users are sent to a “Dissuasion Commission,” which generally prescribes treatment, including free access to substitutes and aids that assist in breaking down addiction. While not legalized, drug possession is only subject to a small fine and obligatory attendance before the Dissuasion Commission, whose task is to prevent the casual user from becoming an addict and help the addict kick the habit, and stabilize the lives of those in treatment. A vast public education program has been conducted on the dangers of drug use, as part of an attack on the problem on all fronts: interdiction and punishment of supply, medical treatment and supervised registration and treatment for users.

Trucks dispensing methadone (an opioid substitute and long part of most anti-addiction treatment programs) cruise the streets of Lisbon and other cities, providing free dispensation to those trying to get clear of drugs. This different approach assures that all abusers of hard drugs in Portugal receive treatment, where the total in the U.S. of those receiving treatment is only about 10 per cent. Most Portuguese in treatment are able to maintain jobs and relatively stable personal lives, while analogous people in the United States receive lengthy sentences in prisons where there is no official effort to help them kick the drug habit (and drugs are reasonably available in most U.S. prisons), and they are not trained to make a living in a legal and gainful occupation when they are finally released.

In Portugal, trucks cruise the streets and freely dispense methadone to all those trying to get clear of drugs

The Portuguese plan focused on specific high-risk groups such as prostitutes, young unemployed, and specific immigrant ethnic groups. Decriminalization also removed the fear of incarceration from those who might otherwise seek help in combating their addiction. Naturally, Portugal has spared itself the vast expense of the law enforcement process the United States shoulders in the implementation of its drug policy, and Portugal only spends about $10 per citizen per year on its entire drug program. The entire anti-drug effort is made easier by the fact that Portugal is a country with tight gun control, which is frequently a complicating factor in the United Sates where everyone who wants a firearm can easily lay hands on one. Portugal is, it need hardly be emphasized, a much smaller and less complicated country than the United States, but the fact that drug use in its population has declined by 75 per cent in 15 years is very impressive.

Canada has, with other drugs than marijuana, taken a path much closer to the Americans, and the former Harper government stiffened penalties for all drug offenses. Portugal has not taken the logical next step of shouldering out the dealers and taking over controlled distribution of drugs itself. This is the path that Canada and the American states of Colorado and Oregon have embarked upon with marijuana.

The Canadian motive seems to have been philosophical, where the American states seem to be chiefly concerned with thirst for revenue. In a similar evolution, western governments have, as their desire to buy popularity with more extensive services has combined with political fear of general tax increases, moved from discouragement of alcoholic beverages and gambling, to feeding their own addiction to tax and spend by extracting greater revenue from those sources. This is the strongest possible motive for greater indulgence of drugs, but the Portuguese experiment shows that it is good policy on its own merits. As it prepares the rules for marijuana sales and use, the federal government should examine the Portuguese model, as well as the disastrous drug war in the U.S.

A final note: the Portuguese program was designed by Antonio Guterres, now secretary-general of the United Nations. He will find chronic addiction to bad habits there too.

First published in the National Post.

Posted on 09/30/2017 5:45 AM by Conrad Black
Friday, 29 September 2017
Islamic Gender Apartheid by Phyllis Chesler

New English Review Press is pleased to announce the publication of our twenty fourth book, Islamic Gender Apartheid: Exposing a Veiled War Against Women by Phyllis Chesler.

Phyllis Chesler is by far the bravest and most outspoken American feminist to address the plight of Muslim women. I recommend (that her work) be put on the reading list of every American school. —Ayaan Hirsi Ali

To read Phyllis Chesler is to encounter one of the most challenging and original minds in the world today.—Alan Dershowitz

Phyllis Chesler unveils one of the most dramatic domestic and international problem of our times; that of Islamic gender apartheid, analyzed by a daring and politically incorrect lover of truth.—Bat Ye’or

Phyllis Chesler brings an eloquent and righteous anger to bear against Western feminists for their dual habit of overlooking the plight of Muslim women and blaming Israel, by far the Middle East’s most feminist country, for the woes of that region.—Daniel Pipes

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D, is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies. She is the author of seventeen books, including the 20th century landmark feminist classics Women and Madness (1972); Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody (1986); and Sacred Bond: The Legacy of Baby M (1988). Her 21st century work includes The New Anti-Semitism (2003), The Death of Feminism (2005) and An American Bride in Kabul (2013), which won a National Jewish Book Award, and, in 2016, Living History: On the Front Lines for Israel and the Jews 2003-2015. Her work has been translated into many European languages and into Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and Hebrew.

Since the Intifada of 2000, Dr. Chesler has focused on anti-Semitism and the demonization of Israel; the psychology of terrorism; the nature of propaganda and the importance of the cognitive war against fact and reason; honor-based violence and the rights of women, dissidents, and gays in the Islamic world. Dr. Chesler has published four studies about honor killings, and penned a position paper on why the West should ban the burqa; these studies have all appeared in Middle East Quarterly. She has submitted affidavits on behalf of Muslim and ex-Muslim women who are seeking asylum or citizenship based on their credible belief that their families will honor kill them. She has archived most of her articles at her website:

Posted on 09/29/2017 7:31 AM by NER
Friday, 29 September 2017
School of Oriental and African Studies hosted more extreme speakers in past year than any other university, report finds

From the Telegraph

The School of Oriental and African Studies (Soas) has hosted more extreme speakers and events in the past academic year than any other university in the country, a new report has found. The prestigious London university, which is well-known for its liberal outlook, held 14 events that featured speakers with extreme Islamic views, according to an analysis by the Henry Jackson Society (HJS).

A total of 112 ‘extremist’ events which targetted students took place across the country over a period of eight months, the report found. However, it notes that the true number is likely to be much higher, since the researchers were only able to analyse events which were publicly advertised on social media sites or elsewhere online.

Of the eight institutions that held the most ‘extremist’ events, five were in London and two were members of the elite Russell Group. Kingston University and University College London held six, while Brunel, Queen Mary, Bath, Kent and Southampton universities each held four, the report said.

Moazzam Begg, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, spoke at six different universities around the country as a representative of the organisation Cage which provoked outrage by calling Jihadi John a "beautiful young man" and told people to "support the jihad" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The report also analysed what topics the speaker events covered, dividing them up into broad themes. The most common topic was “religious apologetics” with a total of 30 appearances, followed by “religious jurisprudence, exegesis and history” with 26 events, and “grievances” with 21 events.

Richard Black, director of Student Rights, said the report shows that “far too many of these events are going ahead unchallenged”, and added that a national speaker policy should be developed. “What we are seeing is that where ‘no platforming’ is occurring, it is disproportionate,” Mr Black said. “Germaine Greer, Peter Tatchell - these are the people students are standing up against, while Islamist speakers are overwhelmingly getting away with it.”

Posted on 09/29/2017 5:07 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Friday, 29 September 2017
Top university accepts Islamic Society’s gender-segregated event was ‘unlawful’

A top UK university has accepted that gender segregation that took place at a gala dinner, which saw women and men separated by a curtain, was unlawful, The Independent can reveal. The London School of Economics (LSE) came under fire in March last year after the Islamic Society held a gala dinner for which students had to buy separate tickets depending on whether they were a “brother” or a “sister”. 

When they arrived at the event, held at a banqueting hall in central London, there was a large screen separating the men’s tables from the women’s ones, stopping the attendees from even looking at each other.

The university has now conceded that the annual event is “likely to fall foul of the Equality Act 2010 and be unlawful on the grounds of discrimination by gender due to the segregation”.

A letter of complaint submitted by students to the LSE Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Division in May last year claimed the requirement for men and women to sit in separate parts of the room was “discriminatory” on the basis of gender in accordance with the EHRC guidance.

“Students were actively segregated through the ticketing process, as well as the presence of the separation wall,” the letter stated. “The gender segregated requirements at the event therefore included direction, instruction and expectation with regards to seating, movement and interaction of attendees. In no way could such requirements be classed as voluntary.”

In a formal response to the complaint, seen exclusively by The Independent, Carola Frenge, chair of the EDI taskforce, wrote: “The School appreciates your position and accepts that there might have been an obligation on the School to investigate this matter more thoroughly at the outset,” it read. “I have therefore conducted an investigation into this matter and accept that there is a likelihood that the Annual Dinner was unlawfully gender segregated.”

Ms Frenge found that there was no clear evidence the segregation was voluntary, or that the annual dinner could not be considered an act of worship, and that there were therefore no grounds for exemption from the Equality Act.

The LSE also admitted that they did not take adequate steps to formally investigate whether unlawful discrimination occurred, or adequate steps to prevent the risk of similar unlawful discrimination occurring in the future.  Despite this admission, LSE brushed off the concerns that the students had raised, and refused to take pertinent action to ensure that gender segregation would not reoccur.  

Given the failure of LSE to act, and perceived attempts by the university to delay the process, the students took the complaint to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Students in Higher Education. The watchdog ruled that the appeal to the complaint was “partly justified”,

Posted on 09/29/2017 3:47 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Friday, 29 September 2017
Melanesian, Animist and Christian West Papua Indigenes Declare They Want Independence from their Muslim Rulers: The UN Puts Its Fingers in Its Ears

Whilst our reliably-Islamophile press and any number of Useful Idiot intellectuals predictably wail and wring their hands  on behalf oft the so-called 'Rohingya' Muslims in Myanmar - whose 'plight' appears for the moment to have entirely eclipsed the previously-most fashionable 'progressive' cause du jour, that of the so-called 'poor "Palestinians"' [i.e. of  a carefully re-branded subset of the local Arab Muslims in and around Israel, who have been used for decades by the Ummah as stalking-horses, much as the Sudetendeutsch were used by Hitler against Czechoslovakia] - the ethnically Melanesian indigenous peoples of West Papua, overwhelmingly and ancestrally, historically non-Muslim (originally animist, now mostly Christian) have been and are being crushed by ethnically-Malay, overwhelmingly-Muslim and suffused-with-Islam Indonesia, which has not a shred of a real historic claim to any part of the island of New Guinea.  If people-group A and people-group B, historically different and separate in every imaginable way, were for a period of time ruled by the same colonial ruler (C), does that really imply that the rulers of people-group A have a natural and absolute right to dominate and domineer over - indeed, to steadily dispossess and destroy - people-group B, after C departs?  But that is what Indonesia insists; and what Indonesia is doing - dispossessing and destroying, and by so doing, not coincidentally, expanding the Dar al Islam.  And the world in general seems to think this is a jolly good thing and that Muslim Indonesia has every right to thus behave.

Now, we hear a report of an underground petition in favour of West Papuan Independence - which if achieved  would mean the pushing back of the borders of the Dar al Islam and then either the creation of a new free Infidel sovereign state, West Papua, or else its union in some form with its neighbour to the east, the ethnically Melanesian and majority-Christian Infidel sovereign state, Papua-New Guinea. which inhabits the eastern half of that same island of New Guinea -  that has been quietly circulating from village to village among the native Infidels of Papua, garnering a vast number of signatures.

And the UN, currently controlled by the Islamintern, that same UN which is so tenderly solicitous of and vociferous in demanding the rights - including right of secession (Mindanao, Kosovo - of Muslim pluralities within otherwise-Infidel states, and which unquestioningly believes and trumpets abroad all Muslim claims of 'oppression' and 'persecution' at the hands of the Evil Infidels, turns its back and sticks its fingers in its ear when apprised of the unhappiness of the West Papuan infidels under Muslim rule.  It seems that the UN is much exercised by the supposed sufferings of Muslims whenever they are in minority, but couldn't care less about the sufferings of indigenous non-Islamic minorities within Muslim entities (have there been any solemn UN reports upon, or resolutions concerning, the gross abuses - by the Muslim majority - of the human rights of the indigenous HIndu and Christian minorities in Islamic Pakistan, or of the indigenous Christian, animist, Buddhist and Hindu non-Bengali tribes of the Chittagong Hill Tracts within Islamic Bangladesh, where a ruthless hijra is currently in rapid progression ... as it is, also, in West Papua, with large numbers of Muslims - always Muslims, overwhelmingly - in train to demographically swamp the indigenes)?

Two reports that appeared recently in Australia's ABC.  First, from Timothy Fernandez:

"Outlawed West Papua Independence Petition Presented to the United Nations". 

'A secret petition demanding a new independence referendum for West Papua has been presented to the United Nations.

'The Indonesian Government banned the petition in the provinces of West Papua and Papua, threatening that those who signed it will be arrested and face jail.

How dare any uppity Infidels express a wish not to be ruled by Muslims!! The insolence! - CM

'Advocates argue that West Papuans (that is: 'overwhelmingly Melanesian and non-Muslim West Papuans' - CM), have been denied a legitimate self-determination process, since it was incorporated into Indonesia in 1969 (sic: "since their homelands were invaded and occupied by Muslim-majority and Muslim-dominated Indonesia, on the pretext of a blatantly-rigged "referendum", in 1969" - CM).

'The petition demands a free vote on West Papua's independence, as well as the appointment of a UN representative, to investigate reports of human rights violations by Indonesian security forces.

There are persistent reports of atrocities up to and including the destruction of churches, the murder of Christian priests and ministers, and the removal of non-Muslim children - whether by force or by deception - to be indoctrinated into Islam in madrasas in the Muslim heartlands of Indonesia, notably Java.  

Meanwhile, Indonesia's 'transmigration' scheme - which is hijra by any other name and has been used to Islamise large chunks of Indonesia-ruled territory that were never, historically, Muslim (for more on the Muslim technique of hijra- immigration-invasion - see Sam Solomon, 'Al Hijra: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration) - is flooding West Papua with Muslims, and in a few more decades, the native non-Muslims will be outnumbered in their own ancestral lands; Indonesia is probably planning to wait a couple more decades, whilst pouring in Malay Muslims, mostly from Java, and then - having 'stacked' the prospective vote - with much fanfare hold a 'referendum' which will, predictably, deliver a majority in favour of remaining under Indonesian - that is, Muslim - rule. - CM

'The Prime Minister of Solomon Islands, Manasseh Sogavare, said the petition was incredibly important, and the people of West Papua had effectively already voted to demand their self-determination.

"They have come in numbers to express their hope for a better future", Mr Sogavare said in his UN General Assembly speech.

'United Liberation Movement for West Papua spokesman, Benny Wenda, said that signing the petition was "a dangerous act" for West Papuans, with 57 people arrested for supporting the petition, and 54 tortured by Indonesian security forces during the campaign.

I believe him.  Muslim entities are ruthless - and despite all the ballyhood about modernity and moderation, at bottom, Indonesia is 85 percent Muslim, and ttherefore it is safest to assume that for all practical purposes it is suffused with the attitudes that Islam inculcates always and everywhere in its adherents - when they encounter the tiniest hint of insubordination from non-Islamic minorities.  - CM

"The Global Petition for West Papua, run in tandem with the West Papuan People's Petition, was also targeted, and the platform that initially hosted it, Avaaz, was blocked throughout all of Indonesia", he said.

'Jason McLeod, of University of Sydney's Department for Peace and Conflict Studies, said that the petition needed to be understood as a "fundamental rejection" of the Indonesian Government's claim of sovereignty over West Papua.

"In a very clear and direct manner, the petition represents Papuans' demand for decolonisation and self-determination, their desire to freely and fairly determine their own future", Dr McLeod said.

And behind that, is the fact that these non-Muslim indigenous peoples have experienced nearly 50 years of cruel and ruinous Muslim imperial rule. Once, some tried to draw the attention of the West to the suffering of the Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbs under Ottoman Muslim imperial rule.  Now people need to be reminded of the suffering of the Papuan Christians and animists under the boot of Muslim-dominated Indonesia.  

But it appears they do not want to be reminded (as many, indeed, did not want to be reminded of what Muslims were doing to Greek or Serb or Bulgarian Christians). 

The UN claims that no petition has been received.  This, from the ABC's Indonesia correspondent, Samantha Hawley. 

"West Papua Independence Petition Does Not Exist, United Nations Says".

'The head of the United Nations decolonisation committee has rejected reports of a secret petition demanding a free vote for independence in West Papua.

'Exiled West Papuan independence campaigner Benny Wenda had told the press that 1.8 million West Papuans had signed the secret petition that was passed between homes and villages across provinces.

'In the reports, Mr Wenda said he presented the petition to the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation.

Did he give it directly into the hands of the chairman of that committee? Or did he give it to someone who said that they would take it to the committee?  If the latter, it is possible that someone made sure that it got 'lost' along the way. - CM

'But from New York the chairman of the committee said that no petition had been received, and the report, which first appeared in The Guardian newspaper (it is fascinating to see the usually-reliably-Islamophile Guardian siding with the West Papuan cause... for that cause is, essentially, a demand for de-Islamisation, a demand that a Muslim imperial ruler be required to remove itself and cease from oppressing and exploiting a non-Muslim indigenous population - CM) was a manipulation.

"Some people are trying to use me and trying to manipulate or whatever", Rafael Ramirez said.

"I'm concerned because some people are trying to use me as propaganda."

'Mr Ramirez said West Papua was not on the agenda for the committee (of course ! it is a whole bunch of non-Muslim peoples dominated by a Muslim imperial occupier; this is the way that things ought to least for the OIC-dominated UN, these days - CM) and it had a very good and strong relationship with Indonesia  (sic: dear Mr Ramirez, you are causing me to feel sick; do you not see the reports of mass-murder and every other kind of human-rights violation, seeping out of the locked-shut doors of Indonesian-ruled West Papua, like blood from under the doors in Bluebeard's castle?.. - CM)

'"Indonesia is a very good friend of ours", he said.

Of the Committee?  The UN committee on 'decolonisation' has a 'very good friend' in that Muslim Indonesia that, in a fit of murderous spite, laid waste to a large part of the infrastructure of East Timor after that province, after enduring hell-on-earth at Indonesian hands for decades, miraculously achieved its independence?  The Indonesia whose army winked at wholescale ethnoreligious 'cleansing' of the Christian regions of the Moluccas and Ambon, by the Lashkar Jihad?  Or does Mr Ramirez mean that 'Indonesia' is his, Mr Ramirez', very good friend??  - CM

'The Indonesian Government condemned the reports of a petition and said it was a political stunt with no credibility'.

Muslims lie. And dhimmis, too - quite probably, our Mr Ramirez - also tend to lie, rather a lot, because they know their role in life is to serve and appease their Muslim masters.  Myself, I find it more probable that Mr Ramirez is lying, and the Indonesians are lying, than that Mr Wenda - and the PM of the Solomon Islands (a number of the majority-Christian Pacific countries have, to their credit, been taking an interest in the sufferings and aspirations of their West Papuan brethren) are lying. My own suspicion is that the petition was created, and did exist, but was caused to go astray, accidentally-on-purpose, by some Islamophile person into whose sticky fingers it passed on its journey toward Mr Ramirez.  That is: that if it did not land in Mr Ramirez' in-tray, that does not necessarily mean it did not exist.

If I am wrong, and the report of a petition was in error, then.. it strikes me that a petition of this kind ought to be undertaken, despite the real and great danger that faces any uppity Papuan infidel daring to sign off on their desire to be rid of their Muslim imperial rulers.  But if, at terrible risk, created, a petition of this sort cannot be entrusted to 'the usual channels' - multiple copies would have to be created, and presented directly and publicly, to avoid it being 'lost' by some Islamic or pro-Islamic 'gatekeeper' before ever it reached the likes of Mr Ramirez. - CM

Posted on 09/29/2017 12:26 AM by Christina McIntosh
Thursday, 28 September 2017
Hate preacher Kamran Hussain has today been jailed for more than six years.

From the Stoke Sentinel

The 40-year-old imam was locked up for six-and-a-half years at London's Old Bailey this morning after being convicted of six charges of encouraging terrorism and two counts of supporting the Islamic State terror group.

Hussain was arrested after anti-terror police planted an undercover officer in the mosque at 229 High Street, in Tunstall. The covert worshipper secretly recorded 17 sermons between June and October last year - with investigators saying six 'strayed beyond mainstream moderate Islamic thought'.

In his sermons, Hussain, of Knightsbridge Way, Tunstall, told children as young as 10 that martyrdom was better than anything they would achieve at school. He also said martyrs had nothing to fear when 'you go in front of Allah with the bullet wounds and sword wounds and you are raised in that situation with the blood still coming from your body'.

The most highly rated comment is pertinent

Has the Mosque been closed down? 
Has its charitable status been withdrawn or suspended? 
Have the other trustees been arrested (they are legally responsible)? 
Have other members of this congregation been questioned under caution? 
Have the parents of the children been placed under a watch order by social services?
I suspect that to all these questions the answer is no. And the excuse will be because of PC, in deference to the community, because they do not want to inflame locals. I

Posted on 09/28/2017 12:02 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Thursday, 28 September 2017
Germany’s Moment

Merkel may expand the influence of the world’s third most powerful nation.

by Conrad Black

After the recent German election, that country may be a step closer to assuming its full status as the greatest power in Europe, and the greatest in the world after the United States and China. It has long been a truism that Germany was very late unified (1871, the latest of all the G-7 countries, even newer than Canada), had great difficulty determining whether it was mainly an eastern- or western-facing country, and, every time it set out to reinforce its own security, it infringed the security of its neighbors. Germany was the greatest power in Europe from the day of its founding, and all previous leading European statesmen since the beginning of the nation-state had realized the desirability for them of avoiding the unification of the German-speaking sections of Europe. Among these were Richelieu, the founder of modern France; Napoleon; and the Austrian chancellor Metternich, the last successful opponent of German unity.

From when Bismarck outwitted successively the Austrians and the French, and attached almost all the German-speaking areas to Prussia, except for the present Austria — a few million people in and around Vienna — Germany became a country so formidable in Europe that there were constant assemblies of coalitions and alliances to counterbalance it, especially after the foolish young emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm II, who fired Bismarck, the unifier of Germany, after 28 years as leader, discharged Russia from its alliance with Germany and provoked the British by building a navy of competitive strength to challenge it for the scepter of the seas. First France and Russia became allies, and then France, Russia, and Great Britain (and its immense Empire), and that combination barely overcame Germany in World War I and needed the collaboration of the United States in the last 19 months of that war to prevail.

Thus began a cycle between irresponsible German exercise of its great strength in Europe, and a state of artificial self-effacement. Germany was a pariah, disarmed and regarded as the chief culprit in World War I, trying to get back on its feet and return to the councils of the Great Powers, when, like the whole world, it was overwhelmed by the Great Depression and was semi-democratically (at first) hijacked by Hitler and the National Socialists. He had no difficulty swiftly regaining Germany’s stature in Europe, and added to German nationalism pathological notions of racial superiority and the right and virtue of German recourse to aggressive war. There was no ambiguity at all about which country provoked World War II, which spread to the Far East and across North Africa and killed almost four times as many people as the First World War. And, as all the world knows, Germany murdered 12 million people in death camps and conducted the most barbarous war in history in Russia, against a country and a regime that reciprocated Nazi savagery. (Stalin had even more blood on his hands than Hitler, though not generally inflicted by racial or sectarian criteria.)

At the end of World War II, every square inch of Germany was occupied by its principal enemies, but under American leadership, the three Western Allied zones of occupation were formed into the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) and reconstituted as a serious democracy, for which the Germans devised institutions that have governed well and equitably since 1949. As the United States was the only country that was, because of its own immense might, not afraid of a united Germany, the Americans were Germany’s principal helper in escaping the stocks of war-guilt. The Western Allied armies of occupation became, after four years and after a suitable reduction in force levels, the vanguard of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. To the distress of the French, and with no great enthusiasm from the aged Winston Churchill, President Eisenhower — the former commander of the Western armies of liberation and chief military governor of Germany and founding commander of NATO — welcomed West Germany into NATO in 1955 and, with the great German post-war chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, led the political rehabilitation of Germany.

Arguably the greatest single act of statesmanship in the world since World War II, along with the Marshall Plan, was Adenauer’s rejection of Stalin’s offer of reunification of Germany in exchange for German neutrality. Adenauer believed that Germany had lacked allies in the past that had been of any use to it (Austria-Hungary and Turkey in World War I, and Fascist Italy in World War II, were a burden to Germany) and now she was allied with the United States, Great Britain, and France, and would be reunified eventually with the help of her allies. Adenauer and Charles de Gaulle ended the long antagonism between their countries with the Franco-German Friendship treaty of 1963. The European Common Market had been formed, then the European Union, and the Soviet Union and its dominance of eastern Europe disintegrated, as Germany spontaneously regained its unity and the Western Alliance and European economic union moved past Germany, to the Poland–Ukraine border and along both sides of the Baltic. Germany was in a cocoon of political and economic allies, as generally convivial a country politically as it had at times been belligerent and oppressive.

By being the cooperative and even diffident engine room of European unity, Germany has benignly achieved most of the general preeminence it had sought in Europe under Bismarck and, in his deranged way, Hitler, but with an unwavering aversion to the use of force. It has been an astounding saga, enabled and guided by the United States in one of America’s greatest triumphs of sustained statesmanship, and many American leaders, including General Marshall, President Truman, Dean Acheson, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, and Secretaries Kissinger (a German native), Shultz, and Baker, have all had a hand in it. Since 1949, the Christian Democrats and their Bavarian associated party have governed Germany for 48 of 68 years, always reliably attached to the Western Alliance. The Social Democratic chancellors — Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and Gerhard Schroeder — were a mixed bag in alliance terms, Brandt being especially susceptible to the forest murmurs of courtship from the east, but all held their party, which has always been fundamentally divided on the issue of looking to the east or the west, solidly enough in the Western Alliance.

But at this point, it is force of habit. For most of its history, West Germany had no great difficulty deciding whether it liked better America’s soft and protective hegemony or the hobnailed jackboot of Marxist and economically bankrupt Soviet Communism. It was in 1953 that puppet East German leader Water Ulbricht said, after pro-democracy demonstrations in East Berlin, that the regime had “lost confidence in the people” (and former Communist Berthold Brecht asked whether Ulbricht wished “to dissolve the people and elect another”). As of this week, the Christian Democrats are down to 34 percent, and the stranglehold on Bavaria has been loosened. The Social Democrats have crumbled to 20 percent, and the conservative and somewhat nationalist, anti-immigration, and Euroskeptical German Alternative party has arisen with 13 percent. The capitalistic, small-business Free Democrats have come back up to 10 percent, just ahead of the Linke (the detritus of East German Communism) and the Greens.

Ideologically the country has moved to the right, and the Center-Right and Right outnumber the Left 60 percent to 40 percent among the voters. There are practically no real extremists, though a few old leftists fester in the Linke. But there is also a fragmentation of parties and Merkel will have to organize a three-party coalition, or govern with a minority and assemble parliamentary majorities to legislate on each initiative, picking up either Alternative or Green votes to get her measures passed (the Free Democrats are reliable supporters).

Europe and the world are waiting for the sensible and benign Germany that has led Europe to economic success to show its hand and fill the vacuum of European leadership.

Unscripted and scarcely discernible from the outside is a gentle tussle for the heart and mind of the world’s third most powerful country. Until relatively recently, Germany would not deploy forces outside the NATO area without the approval of the United Nations. There is increasing antagonism within Europe to the anti-democratic authoritarian regulators in Brussels, who do not answer to the European Parliament or to the major leaders of the component countries, and are elected by the unelected commission and not even answerable to it. Any change of geopolitical movement by Germany could be immensely important. Merkel could have been Bismarck-in-drag if she had been minded to lead from the front, but she has been a reliable and sensible centrist leader, moving subtly, apart from her impetuous admission of a million desperate migrants. It is hazardous to mind-read, but the fact that she did admit them and survived politically indicates the depth of continuing German guilt for the atrocities of the Nazis and the legacy of Prussian-German militarism generally.

Nothing dramatic is afoot, but Germany should have at least as great a voice in the world as its ancient rivals, France and Russia, and that voice, if raised a little, should be one that America would welcome. But Germany has not fulfilled its natural role as Europe’s greatest power in Europe in a responsible way since the rustication of Bismarck 127 years ago. Putin is too disreputable and autocratic and Russia too feeble, suspect, and distant; and France’s Macron is still an unknown quantity. Britain is edging back to a mid-Atlantic offshore posture. In February, Merkel will pass Hitler as Germany’s fourth longest serving chancellor (after Bismarck, Helmut Kohl, and Adenauer); there is no obvious successor and no party but hers capable of forming a government. Europe and the world are waiting for the sensible and benign Germany that has led Europe to economic success, under the American umbrella and then in a voluntary concert of Europe, to show its hand and fill the vacuum of European leadership. Germany has an opportunity unique in its history and reserved to few countries to influence the world.

First published in National Review Online.

Posted on 09/28/2017 9:49 AM by Conrad Black
Thursday, 28 September 2017
Mass grave with at least 45 Hindu corpses found in Burma – as army claims they’re victims of a massacre by Muslim Rohingya militants

From the Sun. People criticise the Sun but I believe it to be the first English newspaper not completely taken in by the narrative of the poor little persecuted Rohingya.

DEVASTATED relatives howled by rows and rows of rotting corpses today after the bodies of massacred women and children were found in a mass grave. Authorities in Myanmar - formerly known as Burma - displayed 45 bodies of Hindu villagers they say were slaughtered by Muslim Rohingya insurgents.

Speaking about how the grave was found, police officer Okkar Ko said: "We followed the paths based on the information we got from the other side. We found where the soil wasn't normal and then when we dug up the ground, the smell came out."

Major Zayar Nyein, of Border Guard Police Headquarters in Maungdaw, said: "We are still searching for more mass graves in that same area. I don't know exactly why these terrorists killed that many people. The Hindu village was very much up north and communication was not that good and that's why security forces were not able to reach out to the area sooner."

The government's Information Committee has released a statement on its Facebook page saying that from October 2016 to August 2017, at least 79 people were killed in attacks and 37 have gone missing, including local officials, public servants and security forces. Another 84 were killed and 54 have gone missing since August 25, when the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, or ARSA, launched attacks on at least 30 police outposts.

Myanmar troops are still searching for nearly 50 more Hindu villagers feared slaughtered. But the military response to the insurgent attacks has driven 480,000 Muslim Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh and drawn UN accusations of ethnic cleansing by the army with the help of Buddhist vigilantes.

Posted on 09/28/2017 2:54 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Thursday, 28 September 2017
Hate-preaching Stoke-on-Trent imam who encouraged terrorism to be sentenced at Old Bailey

From the Stoke Sentinel

Radical Stoke-on-Trent preacher Kamran Hussain is due to be sentenced later today after being convicted of supporting the Islamic State terror group and encouraging terrorism. The 40-year-old will learn his fate at the Old Bailey after a jury found him guilty of eight terror-related charges.

The prosecution was brought after an undercover law enforcement officer recorded the imam’s radical sermons from a mosque in High Street, Tunstall, over a four-month period last year. Hussain, of Knightsbridge Way, Tunstall, told children that martyrdom was better than anything they would achieve at school, encouraged terrorism and supported the terror group in Syria.

Posted on 09/28/2017 1:37 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Wednesday, 27 September 2017
Phyllis Chesler, At War With the ‘Faux Feminists’ of the Left

Why do so many so-called progressives cry out against Zionism while accepting so much violence against women elsewhere in the Middle East?

Richard Landes writes in The Tablet.

Gloria Steinem stands with Linda Sarsour at the Women's March in Washington DC

Earlier this month, the UJA Women of the Federation of NY presented Phyllis Chesler with a lifetime achievement award, on which occasion Chesler gave a talk on the problem of what she called Faux-feminism. The respondent was Linda Scherzer, a former CNN news reporter stationed in the Middle East in the 1990s and currently the Director of Community Relations at the Jewish Federation of Greater MetroWest NJ. Together they fielded questions afterwards.

The speech was vintage Phyllis Chesler: Incisive, fearless, and devastating to her “faux-feminists” for refusing to recognize the problems with Islam, thereby betraying their Muslim sisters who are the target of a crushing, veiled war [1] from Muslim men, and compensating for their silence about Muslims with shrill denunciations of Israel for flaws, real and imagined:

A postmodern and postcolonial feminism which passionately condemns Christianity and Judaism as the greatest danger to women’s rights but dares not critique religiously supremacist Islam for this same reason; an intersectional “faux feminism” which condemns only Western imperialism and refuses to acknowledge the long history of Islamic imperialism, colonialism, slavery, anti-black racism, and religious and gender apartheid; a “faux feminism” which is far more concerned with the alleged occupation of a non-existent country, (“Palestine”), than it is with the occupation of women’s bodies, faces, minds, and genitalia world-wide—including those women who are being forcibly face-veiled, death-threatened, and honor killed in the disputed territories; a “faux feminism” which is heartlessly and irrationally anti-Zionist.

They have, Chesler insisted, betrayed both Jewish women and women of color, symbolized by their turning on one of the bravest embodiments of women’s self-empowerment, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, independent woman of color. (The largest group signing the petition [3] protesting the Brandeis award was Women’s Studies).

Anyone who has followed Chesler’s 21st century writings [4] has heard much of this before. The problem is, as she pointed out rather poignantly, very few have heard this, because, starting with her 2003 cri de Coeur about the “new anti-Semitism [5],” she has been exiled to an American Gulag, reviews of her books going from the front page of the NYT to the recycle bin of books not reviewed. Indeed, behind her laconic remarks lies a painful experience of being marginalized in the movement she had helped launch, cold-shouldered by her sister feminists for her unforgivably “right-wing” attitudes towards Israel. Long before Linda Sarsour came along, the formula was already in play: “You can’t be a feminist and a Zionist.”

Although Chesler had not mentioned Linda Sarsour in her formal address, the co-chair of the Women’s March of January 2017 came up almost immediately in Q&A. How could feminists, Jewish feminists, join ranks with a woman who didn’t hesitate to tell Zionists they could not be good feminists, and that, instead they must show solidarity with the deeply misogynist Palestinian leadership? More than one woman who took the mike talked about their children in college who shy away from defending Israel because, as one put it, “they want to have friends.”

As Chesler recounted her career of trying to draw attention to the dangers of renascent hostility to Jews on the left, I was filled with a deep admiration for her persistence. All the polite and some not-so-polite dismissals by people in positions of influence–Jewish leaders, Israeli officials–all the dismissals for being alarmist, or worse, paranoid, all the loss of friends and colleagues, and worse, the enemies, the dis-invitations, the exclusion from participating in the public debate… She had been fighting the same Sisyphean battle and paying the same psychological price, for thrice as long as I, a Johnny-Come-Lately of the aughts. And here she still was: Clear, morally grounded, sound-minded, not consumed with anger and resentment, still trying to communicate.

When the media pundits and social activists and feminists adopt a scapegoating discourse that Palestinian leaders use in order to blame Israel for the abuse they systematically inflict on their own people and especially their own women, where progressives comply with the demands of faux-moderate Muslims insisting that any criticism of Muslims for how they treat their women is Islamophobic hate-speech, a clear voice like Phyllis Chesler’s is hard to hear indeed.

These are not, however, times for comfort, for easy friendship, for joining popular social-justice peer groups. These are times that call for courage, for integrity, for braving the gulag of faux-progressive exile, for standing tall for real progressive values, no matter what the cost in faux-friends. If not now, when? Certainly, if young women and men want to make a difference in our world, want to contribute to a genuine tikkun olam, they could hardly do better than looking to Phyllis Chesler’s long, productive, passionate, and courageous career for inspiration.

Posted on 09/27/2017 12:38 PM by NER
Wednesday, 27 September 2017
The Painless Knee: Some Questions

by James Como

These days if I were to “take a knee” the crackling would wake the neighbors and there’s a good chance I wouldn’t make it back up, at least not for a while. I would be paying a price, as is the case, for example, when I (try to) genuflect at Mass, first leaning, then hoisting, on the arm of a nearby pew. So, to those exceptionally privileged – but this is not about the current distension of that trendy word: I trust no one is silly enough to contest my use here of ‘privilege’ – to those privileged athletes who take a knee, four questions: 1/ What price are you paying?  2/ Have you thought out – really thought out – your gesture, to the extent that you can make a reasoned argument?  3/ What, if any, allegiance do you owe to the United States (or, for that matter, to your game and its fans) above your Cause?  4/ What, finally, is your point?

We are living in the age of gestures, bumper stickers, initials, abbreviated tweets, chants, placards, emojis, protests, riots, and other shortcuts to meaning that I’m sure I’ve overlooked. I’m not asking for any of those, e.g. “we disrespect a flag that disrespects us,” “black people cannot be racist,” “we live in two nations,” “no matter our salaries, we are merely high-priced slaves.” That sort of thing. Unacceptable. Singly or in combination those thought-substitutes, all clichés, do not add up to an argument, let alone a case, in support of taking a knee at the playing of the National Anthem, with all the specific symbolism, context, history, and purpose thereunto appertaining. I dismiss them precisely because they militate against the honest conversation that so many people ask for.

Here I must become the communication professor I was for fifty years: in human communication intent never equals impact. In other words, you seem to have lost control of your message, which happens especially in cases where the message is inchoate to begin with. That is why I hope you will see that I’m not really asking questions; I’m asking a favor. I’m confused. I’d like you to use words, not feelings or symbolic action. I’m asking that you explain, convince, argue, converse. You have my attention. In that light I offer some thoughts that together may add up to a portrait of my dilemma.

If you wanted to make a statement respecting the unwarranted loss of black lives at the hands of police, then why a second, or a fifth, time? Or is it racial injustice generally that you protest against? But since (you tell me) that’s not going away any time soon, why stop at the field (or include it in the first place, where there doesn’t seem to be any)? Or did you protest the National Anthem precisely to shame the country – in perpetuity? If so, have you said so? Was your purpose to divide (intent)? Surely you must have known that veterans, police, and millions of ordinarily patriotic citizens would take umbrage (impact) – or did you? Do you recall when President Obama thoughtlessly called the police “stupid” when they arrested Henry Louis Gate, Jr.? (He would learn better.) Did he mean to divide, as surely he did (and not for the last time)? Or is your gesture, as one commentator has suggested, an expression of love for your country – a distinctive expression unaccompanied by any other? 

We all have a Cause, or even Causes. I recall hearing the great radical trial lawyer William Kunstler saying that no one on the Left should ever criticize anyone on the Left, for any reason (and that included the demonic Pol Pot). The Cause comes first, and last. Is that the case here? If not, I’d like to hear how not – how the Cause does not rule. That is, I’d like to know what boundaries, if any, exist. Be specific. What exactly are the targets of your protest? Its goals? Is your gesture intended to be corrective, destructively revolutionary (there can be no fixing this house), or merely accusatory? (“Shame!  Shame!”  Well, I’ve been ashamed of myself, and in this case I find nothing to be ashamed of, unless being white is shameful enough, in which case – say so. I’d like to hear that. Everyone should hear that. Out loud.)

As for the first question, the one about the price you pay. What, other than taking a knee, are you ready to do? Will you, for example, visit a VFW hall, or West Point, to tell soldiers directly that they fought for a worthless, even criminal, nation? Or a local precinct (or turn to the cops behind you on the sidelines), to say something equivalent directly to police? I’ve heard that the money you make should play no role in the criticism you’ve received, but I disagree. For example, have you thought to pony up, say, $10,000 to a group that supports your protest every time you kneel? Or do you want the game without any real blame, blame that might hurt beyond the (oh-so-helpful) criticism from a largely unpopular president? 

Because that’s how it looks. As it is, kneeling on the field during the anthem seems little more than exhibitionistic. (Or do you really think you are “speaking truth to power,” another cliché?)  Simply put, right now you seem  more like hijackers, children acting out at a party to spoil the fun; unfocused, shallow, facile mischief-makers. (Jim Brown said he wouldn’t take a knee, he’d take action, as Ali did: there was a price. A fifth question: are there any real Stand Up Guys among you?)

Of course I realize that you may think all the hash has been settled, that reason intrudes upon sincere passion (well, it does) and that nothing counts more than passion (or feels better: so righteous), that arguing (not quarreling, very different) is a waste of time, and that anyone who needs an explanation is beyond understanding in the first place, is really one of them – with their flags, and patriotism, and national pieties – not one of us, deplorable. So why bother? Well, then, say that. It would answer a lot of questions.

And if you “keep on keeping on”? That, too, will answer a lot of questions. Maybe haters really do have to hate.

Posted on 09/27/2017 8:54 AM by James Como
Tuesday, 26 September 2017
The Conditionality of Liberal Support for Israel

by Matthew Hausman

Jerusalem Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar speaks at the mixed gender Western Wall plaza, on June 14, 2016

The recent flap over egalitarian worship at the Western Wall highlighted a disconnect with traditional standards, and the promotion of nontraditional agendas that are more political than spiritual. Despite hysterical claims that the Israeli government would ban mixed worship at the Kotel, there in fact is an egalitarian pavilion that was never in jeopardy of being shut down. The controversy reached a crescendo with a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu from the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, decrying both the incident and the broader refusal to recognize non-Orthodox authority in Israel. The controversy has generated an avalanche of commentary – much of it from the nontraditional movements to inflame passions that may be less about the availability of mixed prayer services at the Wall than about the Israeli public’s ambivalence regarding liberal Judaism.

There have also been liberal threats to cease supporting Israel over the issue, though many liberals have already abandoned the Jewish State for reasons that have more to do with secular politics than religion. 

The Reform and Conservative movements have never flourished in Israel as in America, and the reason is not simply that the Orthodox have had a monopoly over the religious establishment since 1948. Though Orthodox hegemony is certainly a fact, there has never been a demand for nontraditional alternatives by secular Israelis, for whom religious identity is not defined by movement affiliation or liberal politics.

Israelis seem to have little affinity for non-Orthodox ideologues who conflate Judaism with progressivism, or for the liberal compulsion to downplay radical Islam and validate supposedly moderate organizations that deny Jewish history and sovereignty...


Posted on 09/26/2017 9:38 AM by Matthew Hausman
Tuesday, 26 September 2017
Wasting Man

by Friedrich Hansen

Many people have been waiting for this to happen: a reversal of the tide of the sexual revolution in the West. This is particularly true within conservative or Christian communities. Now last week they were rewarded for their patience with the “Nashville Statement” in which Evangelicals are embracing biological parenthood, committed fatherhood, exclusive heterosexual marriage and most importantly the traditional family.( Then we learned that Orthodox Jewry in the US would love to receive a call by President Donald Trump. ( Only Israel of all places begged to differ by imposing a much belated “gay pride day” on the Holy Land. Subsequently Australia’s national TV station killed ads for Father’s Day which for many years had been broadcast unhampered. Australia is the last Western province yet to regulate “same-sex marriage” which is the subject of a pending referendum there. But it was like dropping a bomb when the second most favored Tory candidate to be the next UK Prime Minister, Jacob Rees-Mogg, positioned himself by opposing abortion and “gay marriage” regardless of circumstances.

Gay cultural Protestantism, Georg Friedrich W. Hegel 1770-1834

Gender ideology insists: there are no natural differences between the sexes, all of these are mere artificial fabrications. Notwithstanding this slap in the face of common sense, the argument is transparently instrumentalist and self-serving, for activist want to radically change sex relations at all costs. Yet even cultural gender differences are part and parcel of deeply ingrained Western institutions, such as marriage, names and family genealogy, and resist change. Just as an example: the passing on of family names exclusively by males was introduced by Judaism. It did make a lot of sense by answering to male craving for recognition. The wanton manipulation of Christian values in particular has its philosophical roots in Hegel, the most important Protestant philosopher, who postulated an “absolute world spirit.” The term idealistic says it all, for his concepts are just ideas, created out of thin air. The irony is though, that Karl Marx, who famously turned Hegel from his head to the feet, belatedly suffered the same treatment on the hand of liberals who dropped him together with the old proletariat for Hegel.

Now in his extravagant idealism Hegel aimed at spiritual freedom but ended with the opposite, in fact reversing Catholic intellectual enquiry (“the truth will make you free”) into Protestant “posturing as if,” presented as self-referential truism (“freedom will make you truthful”). This became known as the modern paradigm of fictional reality, replacing the previous paradigm of monotheist faith which had governed the Occident since late antiquity. Hegel succeeded with his speculative spirituality by uprooting the human mind from its bedrock in tradition, custom and memory and shifting it over to fantasy and voluntarism. He promised everyone: “you can be whatever you want to be.” From there Arthur Schopenhauer took over and radicalized this concept with his “triumph of the will.” Nietzsche so desperately struggled with this concept that would drive him mad eventually.

At the centre of Hegelian philosophy is the Hellenist relationship between master and slave and as a consequence of that, delicate issues of public recognition – topics which assumed prominence in gender identity politics more recently. For they would determine gay relationships between the dominant penetrator and the dominated or penetrated “fag”. Research has shown that if someone is being objectified, “the objectifier views the objectified person as less than a person, without an individual mind and undeserving of moral treatment”. Put in its historical context this amounts to visualizing the Christian proxy sacrifice, replacing Jewish self-sacrifice. Outsourcing “identity” in gender groups after all is only a cover for inward slavery of gay men. This extravagance of secularized proxy sacrifices afforded the practicing sadomasochist Michel Foucault the moniker “Fucking Saint”.


If we study Foucault properly both sides of the claim “consenting adults” turn out to be false for neither are gays mature adults nor can there be any “consenting” oneself into serfdom in the form of sadomasochism. The link towards abortion is obvious: mass abortion eradicates adulthood too and diminishes adult responsibility, meaning possible maturation of the person through parenthood. The existential paradox of modernity comes down to a reversal of emancipation into infantilization. Pedophilia truly is an unintended consequence of abortion which depreciates childhood and makes children a rare species allowing adults to fill the void. Many millions of abortions in the West are throwing the natural expectations of young men, ever to become fathers, into oblivion, actually wasting manliness. For the common man this ruins any hope for a meaningful life, i.e. founding a family and being a committed husband and father. The male retreat from marriage is mirrored by the plunge of male work participation which is lower than during the Great Depression in the 1930s. In the last fifty years male unemployment in the US has increased to the second highest level in the OECD, only ahead of Italy with 36 % of the population, according to Nicholas Eberstadt.

Instead the absurd “consent” between sodomizing adolescents who agree to enslave each other, reverses the ethics of three millennia of human civilization, based on the biblical covenant at Sinai. It opened the prospect for humanity to rid itself of slavery by promising everyone individual personhood and a complementary spouse. This created the permanent institutional link between monotheism and monogamy. Today the heterosexual arrangement of marriage and family is being entirely ruined by the gender ideology and the key is impersonal stereotyping as it appears in the letter soup of LGBTIQ+. By lacking genuine originality sexual identity types do not qualify for marriage. In gay relationships the person has to be de-humanized before its individuality can be “sacrificed” by forcing the other into submission. The Christian, Muslim and Jew by contrast sacrifice their own will, their ego, and the narrow instincts attached to it, in order to acquire piety and love of family and community. With gays however what is being sacrificed is human dignity, in particular of the passive homosexual. He bears the brunt of the suffering emanating from the asymmetric psychopathology of sodomy. It was the eminent scholar Rene Girard, who taught us, that without stereotyping there is no scapegoating nor sacrificing by proxy. (

Dominant gays have to acquire group identity in order to harness the energy required for abusing young and submissive adolescents. The same is true for all the other stereotypes contained in meanwhile fifty gender identities. The same sex transgression borders on the criminal in the sense  of “Defining Deviancy Down”, a term coined by Daniel Patrick Moynihan (in: “American educator”, 1993/94). Things are getting much worse, since gays around the globe have started to “normalize” sodomy, blow jobs and other abominations with millions of 5-6 year olds in primary school and Kindergarten, actually stirring up animal instincts with an obvious self-interest.

It was again Patrick Moynihan who established that family break-down alone determines crime rather than race and poverty. In 1992 Moynihan was a Democrat, yet he speaks of a “cultural war” concerning how much deviancy society “can afford to recognize.” The new toleration of sodomy is a case in point. It has even become highly fashionable with heterosexuals, removing the barriers of protection against dangerous bowel pathogens and constantly appealing to the lowest common denominator of mankind. As a result of this we are seeing a surge of pornography and rape.

History taught us that in the Renaissance sexual license got so much out of hand, that in 1533 England had to introduce the death penalty for sodomy - only a decade after Luther set off with the Reformation. In the same vein Iran seems to be cornered by the West not for the official reason, i.e. her nuclear ambition, but far more likely because the Mullahs have introduced the death penalty for sodomy again. However in the wake of the AIDS epidemic, the West choose “dilution of guilt” previously employed only for death squads, where many shots were delivered to kill the perpetrator in order to reduce the risk of revenge acts.

The same logic lies behind the initial spread of gender promiscuity where no one could tell who first raped or spread STIs. Just like Spinozan pantheism, horizontal “gendering” spreads individual guilt centrifugally just like “shared guilt is lesser guilt.” This I take to be the profaned gender “gospel”, which by the same token delivers the apologetics for group tyranny- a vicious circle. Again the philosophy often referred to in this context is Schopenhauer’s “world as will and imagination” as opposed to memory, law and tradition. This is what inspired Oscar Wilde as much as Sigmund Freud. Both would apply it to issues of sex and projected it beyond the family, turning love into power relations. A telling example of the excessive evil created by the switch from loving kindness to crude power relations is Wilde’s novel “The Picture of Dorian Grey” - to my knowledge unsurpassed in its unapologetically evil main character.

Meanwhile we have got so far, thanks to ever compliant medical charlatans to enter a century of purely “Hegelian-Schopenhauerian medicine.” Yet “plastic surgery” on the sexual organs euphemized as “sexual reassignment” does not change the human mind one bit. As a GP I had to look after a transsexual in the 1980s, operated in Casablanca at the time, who deeply regretted the nightmare of living as a female. The education industry is also under the spell of bunglers, heading toward the metaphysical Hegelian road and we are now witnessing stories of sexual “transitioning” with six year olds in school. It is worth noting that it is almost always manliness which is being de- selected and the female sex that is being chosen.

Transitioning Lactatia

Manliness proper is meant to become dissolved in a host of effeminate roles making it almost redundant. This can be gathered from the transitioning of a boy into “Lactatia” (sic!). (

This stereotyping of gender identities creates tribal loyalties which are about to return Western societies from monotheist guilt-and-repentance into shame-and-revenge cultures of old.  These group identities reflect a retreat from individual personhood and responsibility, replacing it with demagogic attitudes of “hate, blame and shame” in effect hiding the self under the carapace of gender. Gender is about aggregating crowd identities based on sex in order to gain political clout, dilute guilt and commence scapegoating others. By this promiscuity gets yet another meaning: it provides the glue for emerging mafia-like gender clans. For this purpose gays are constantly de- individualized. To put it frankly: their “coming out” is a betrayal of their parents, who raised them, for the benefit of mere pressure groups. It is for this reason that the gender revolution takes on the same dynamics as previous nasty mass movements, displays of tyranny and intolerance – now called political correctness - i.e. everything we used to abhor in fascism and communism. Perhaps the best analysis of the liberal tyranny has been published by the Catholic thinker James Kalb (“The Tyranny of Liberalism”, 2008).

Gender typologies are thriving on a second Renaissance of Hellenism returning Greek stereotypes to the West. As in antiquity these stereotypes are just the other side of the coin called promiscuity for you have to shed your true individuality in order to make your flesh available for everyone. It has been proven in many studies that “gay marriage” is a farce because it does not reduce gay promiscuity at all. Yet homosexual men in Greece had been a remnant of archaic matriarchy and its dismal anomic structure. This together with slavery is behind the tragedy of Hellenic polytheism with its multitude of rivaling city states which never managed to rise to one divine centre or to unify alongside of political equality. Only Plato came close to this in his philosophy. It was left to the Russian emigre to the West, Alexander Herzen, to remind the world that Athens was an exploitative slaveholder society.

In the context of modern consumerism sodomy is just the most insidious of addictions, turning  gays into less responsible individuals and less in command of their destiny than the rest of us. Gays tend to become slaves of their ephemeral bodily needs because sodomy can never satisfy the sublime longings of human love. It is lowering and centrifugal and only satisfies the craving for dominance and power. Sodomy has nothing to do with proper sex, which is unique, complementary, truly personal and naturally tied to reproduction. Heterosexual love is centripetal and flourishes in families. Through love of our biological and spiritual offspring hetero-sex carries the promise of the immortality of our soul. Sodomy instead begets physical dependency, as Oscar Wilde was honest enough to confess in his “de profundis,” written in jail, were he admitted “to be a slave of his young lover.”

Gays just like drug-addicts resemble self-consuming machines and therefore offer no future, just as the homosexually infested Athenian polis perished. This points to the subjective side of these totalitarian concepts which rely on reductionist categories. The slave-owning Athenians just had a notorious bad conscience and therefore good reasons for hiding their selves behind typologies which became familiar to us through the Greek tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles. Ancient Greeks were indifferent to personal compassion and empathy precisely because shame culture does not allow to bow down to the weak. Just as Jerusalem’s monotheist guilt culture created humility and a penchant for learning from mistakes, Greek shame culture was built on resistance to change, pride and endless cycles of revenge. It took a Socrates to realize this shortcoming and he paid for it with his life. Gender freaks resemble the short-lived Athenian hedonists, far from being enlightened personalities in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Typical for shame cultures, Athens depended on heteronomy, the clout of the group, lacking a firm inner moral compass. Equally gender people are dependent on crowds and seem to feel most in their own, just like SA men of old, when marching the streets in their unspeakable parades. It is this crowd pressure, inimical to true individuality, which makes most other people feel uncomfortable in the presence of these parades.

Individualism used to be a posterchild of the West, but with the advent of gender that has all changed: conformism formerly wedded to communism has shifted from East to West and is now firmly settled in Protestant countries while individualism has seen a Renaissance in Eastern Europe and Orthodox Russia. Everyone can check this claim by travelling the tube in London or subway in New York and compare it to a ride on the Moscow or Tbilisi Metro: Western subjects of turbo consumerism are typically wearing unisex track suits or the likes of trash attire and sneakers, exposing naked skin, piercing and tattoos more often than not. In Moscow however decent individualized clothing is the rule.

It began much earlier, however, when Protestantism plunged into the secular-cultural mode during the decadent Fin-de-Siecle, at the turn of the 19th century. It seems with the loss of Christ, many people lost their last protection or the divine carapace watching over their soul. The degree to which gender proselytizing has by now translated into politics and media output is frightening. In the Western public arena we are inundated ad nauseam with the gender narrative: in the news, in TV shows, in pre-school, in secondary school, on Campus, even in churches, namely in Protestant mainstream denominations but also in crime stories and stage dramas, in movies and music – around the clock. All this exudes so much conformist pressure that it gives a feeling of almost living in a totalitarian age. This conformist pressure is going to increase, because gay campaigning is unlikely to end anytime soon. It is driven by the denial of internal conflicts that cannot be resolved through public policy but rather through individual psychotherapy, of which gays are loath for the time being. They are conceited and under the delusion of being self-sufficient or “complete beings,” while every heterosexual knows he is only half and has to share his outlook, life and truth claims with the other sex.

Yet gender typology is perfectly compatible with American work place demands and the authoritarian corporate culture. Slavish mentality gives them the ideal submissive characters, flexible and short of any outstanding personality traits. It is for this reason that corporate America, having sensed this early on, has been first to put all their eggs in the gender basket using the full impact of their combined political clout to push this agenda. This has been repeated in all Western countries the latest example being Australia.

Corporate Gay Bullies

In the run up to the referendum on gay marriage Down Under about 649 large companies have signed a petition in favor of same sex “marriage” bullying the public as well as the government in Canberra. CEOs are ruling within their companies like authoritarian tyrants, reports Michael Cook of Mercatornet: for instance Quantas CEO Alan Joyce boasts about his arm-twisting of dissidents: “We have 580 companies involved with the [Australian Marriage Equality] ad campaign. If you’re unhappy with a company that’s involved with the campaign you won’t be able to bank and you won’t be able to fly anywhere.” This is Ayn Randian-style totalitarian entrepreneurism, denying the consumer a real choice. Cook continues: “And where arms will be twisted the hardest will be inside the corporates. Take Google, one of those 628 corporations. A Google engineer in the US wrote a long memo arguing for less gender diversity at work – and last month he was bundled out of the company almost immediately. Also last month a team of scholars at a think-tank which received funding from Google published a position paper critical of Google – and their contract was terminated almost immediately. Remember Google’s old motto, "Don't Be Evil"? It was dropped from its code of conduct in 2015.”

Tyrannies, corporate or state entities alike, do not favor enquiring minds or religious personalities, because it is much easier to run a large international corporation if you are dealing with sheep or vegetables, already “formatted” individuals with strong herd instincts or emasculated men. Qualifying for vegetables and sheep are of course feminists, computer nerds, greens, gays, trans and lesbians, who have long given up on moral sensibilities. Silicon Valley, much overrated as a heaven of science and technology, has long passed its date of expiry. No real innovation has come out of it for quite some time other than commercialized digital gadgets. Yet silicon valley being less active in natural science compensates this with expertise in power politics, psycho-engineering and political subjugation of individuals to group discipline, all part of the a scheme to push conformism and neutralize dissent. This happens not only inside their companies but has spread through gender networks to the society at large and is reflected in the new Western conformism.

Cook says: “Tyranny” is a strong word, but a professor at the University of Michigan does not shrink from using it in a recent book, (Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk About It). Elizabeth Anderson points out that companies are run…"by leaders whose word is law; there is no right to complain apart from narrowly defined exceptions; surveillance is ubiquitous; people can be punished for their lifestyles.” Certainly the gender brigades have become modern tyrants “willing helpers” ushering in “consumer fascism.” Corporate clout, judicial activism and the obliging liberal media in the West together accomplished the impossible feat: to push through the absurd gender agenda against common sense and a majority of the population within less than a decade.

The rest is gay ignorance and stupid pride, resulting in self-righteousness, quasi-messianic zeal and global missionizing – all features reminiscent of the Protestant Reformation. Sadly this also returned medieval “heretics,” namely “homophobes,” cast as public enemies. Homophobe is a term suggestive of an almost paranoid gay bias of self-referential conceit bordering on a Manichean mindset. Surely it has the benefit for gays to be able to project their own psychopathology, namely their infamous misogyny, on heterosexual men. This only increases the atmosphere of Orwellian tyranny. Homophobe is a clinical term - like “arachnophobe” denoting fear of spiders - but it reflects rather pubescent gay megalomania. In addition the term homophobe is wildly discriminatory by putting all heterosexuals, regardless of their individuality, on the same plane as psychopaths, unable to assess and judge the world around them. In other words it denies anyone his discernment, the spiritual capacity and freedom to express oneself.

Free Catholic I-Tunes: St Paul

The insolent epithet “gay” aims at reserving happiness exclusively for themselves and at the same time appealing to the narrowest of human instincts - by implication denying any higher source of happiness. This brazen assault on our sublime Christian cultural traditions disqualifies gay discourse thoroughly and in particular any claims to fairness and respect. Gays simply lack the sense of granting the other the benefit of the doubt and also detest Christian humility and piety. This leaves them morally corrupt. Nevertheless their constant appeal to the lowest human instincts offers by far the best explanation for an otherwise inconceivable political success of the gender revolution. The price for the majority of straight society is diminishing manliness and fatherhood.

Yet I strongly believe - after a decade of intensive research - that the gender revolution must also be understood in terms of two millennia of Western Christian idolatry and adulterated monotheism. At the centre of this is the corruption of the biblical sexual dyad and complementarity, which in Judaism is granting existential male and female equality. The male cannot exist without the female and vice versa. It was Pauline-Augustinian-Lutheran Christianity that replaced the Jewish- particularist family man Jesus with the singular and universal idol called Christ. The exception is obviously Eastern (multi-cephalic) Orthodoxy that in addition preserved priestal marriage like another conservative monotheist denomination, namely Judaism.

Friedrich Nietzsche was perfectly familiar with the difference between Jesus and Christ after examining the difference thoroughly (Walter A. Kaufmann “Nietzsche”, 1950). In our time Bernhard Starr did the same, reaffirmed the family man Jesus (“Jesus Uncensored – Restoring the Authentic Jew,” 2013). Pauline gender triangulation with Christ as universal effeminate male, was to stir up millennial female resentment, and quite reasonably, demands for gender equality culminating in the gradual return of the matriarchy that we are seeing today. Typical for the re- appearance of matriarchy are masses of roaming young men, not only gays, trans’ and queers but also pouring out of the Middle East, Africa and Asia, while being attracted by the Germanic “super mother” and daughter of a Protestant pastor, Chancellor Angela Merkel.

This resembles the Paleolithic state of matriarchy with hordes of fatherless or nameless males, roaming the wilderness for prey with females occasionally impregnated by them while being denied the role of fathers. In his book “New Science” published in 1725, Giambattista Vico told the story of those roaming adolescents, who back in antiquity were called “famuli”. From this term the name family had been derived as a result of their successful integration. “Famuli” meant they did not know, who their father was and hence did not aspire to become fathers themselves. Vico concluded that the name of the father was crucial for the formation of the Christian family.

Cultivating fatherhood was the unique accomplishment of monotheism and consists in the continuity of family names, passed on through monogamous fathers. Over millennia in all human cultures this used to be the crown of manliness rather than any phallic Freudian features which could be seized upon easily by homosexuals. Yet already Martin Luther has been famous for his carnal inclinations or bucolic appetites - a result of his categorical lowering of the gospel from metaphysics to the emotional sphere as Joseph Soloveitchick has shown in his postwar books “Halachik Man” and “Halachic Mind.”

Like most other Protestant Reformers he was an anti-intellectual and opposed charitable deeds in the form of controversial Catholic indulgences. However charitable deeds were the “gold standard” of monotheist truth claims and have been retained in Judaism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy as the only validation of the believer’s true convictions. Thus the Reformation with its ban on “intellect and deed” threw out the baby with the bathwater and left only emotions as proof of inner convictions. This I call the “emotional bottle neck” of Protestantism, the source of endless posturing “as if,” of mere gestures, grandstanding which is today known as “virtue signaling.” Emile Durkheim detected extraordinary high rate of suicides among Protestants during their “cultural turn” in the Belle Epoch, which I take to be desperate manifestations of the “bottle neck.” It was the price for centuries of Protestant posturing and “righteousness on the cheap,” a phrase I read recently and that catches the meaning fairly well. Anyway grandstanding or posturing would eventually became the hallmark of postwar heirs of cultural Protestantism, culminating in liberal claims to the moral high ground soon to be castigated by Lionel Trilling.

Yet fascinating enough habitual poses and gestures were later to be conceptualized as heuristic categories for the interpretation of the gender revolution, namely by the towering intellectual of American liberalism: Judith Butler. She teaches philosophy at the University of Berkeley, California and actually derived from liberal posturing a new category, known as “performatives” for habitual attitudes. This somehow corroborates my observation that it took more than 300 years for the Protestant bottle-neck to burst into what became known first as romanticism and later as gender revolution, which is but an afterthought of the Reformation. Quite a few accomplished modern thinkers are making sense of gender within the theology of incarnation for that matter. For instance the newly retired Protestant theologian Richard Swinburne from Oxford University, addresses gays as “disabled” people, meaning some sort of “revelatory miscarriage.” But putting this in the counter-cultural context this reveals how close “wrongful incarnation” in Protestantism is to clinical terms of somatized gay psychopathology.

Epistemology of Matriarchy

All the same this reasoning remains perfectly within the Protestant logic of gender triangulation while at the same time the whole rainbow agenda is a miscarriage of fictional reality. For it has given rise to the blind spots of “same-sex” agency: namely the recent eclipse of any concern for social injustice. Gender has killed all that. By comparison Asians have always been less individual than Westerners of monotheist provenience, but they were always aware of this and they could rely on their ancient communities of inclusion, integrating all sorts of minorities in their long history.

In the West awkward and exclusionary groupism has gone so far that even most major corporate entities have attached the label “Group” to their LLC. There is no denying of the fact that a century and a half of feminism is what begot this dismal mixture of gendered multinational concerns and new hordes of forgotten males and adolescent hordes, all of which ushered in the return of matriarchy. By replacing the Judeo-Christian individual with Greek typologies, shame culture makes an unwelcome return, creating a new culture of revenge and “hate speech.” Individualism was a unique product of the Jewish civilization and taken over by Christianity, subsequently synthesized with Hellenism, resulting in the Christian guilt-and-forgiveness culture that served us well for two millennia. By contrast to Greek shame culture Christians and Jews are able to distance themselves from transgression, showing repentance, better themselves and in exchange receive redemption. But stubborn gays are exploding this sanitary model for conflict resolution by insisting on transgression, even turning it into a virtue and refusing any change. The downside is moral decline, conformism and authoritarianism, which kills the great Christian tradition of creative science, arts and culture. Instead we are confronted with an atmosphere of mental constraint, which is why the West is running out of entrepreneurs, of innovation and of growth.

More importantly still: in the West you cannot breath freely anymore, the famous touch of the “West” has vanished entirely. For almost a decade by now the air is thick with strife and polite society is falling apart. It turns out spiritual freedom is far more important than emancipation which has landed us in narrow sex and pornography. Surely all this has to do with the demise of manliness. With the gentleman disappeared courage, boldness, adventurism and risk taking, all genuine male features which can never be replaced by females or others with rare exceptions proving the rule. Gender freaks have been able to conquer many roles, posing as “married” couples, artificial families and meanwhile even performing as Protestant or Jewish reformed “clergy.” Yet one role has been denied to them: that of biological fathers who are also name-giving and natural heads of traditional families.

Even socially dedicated gays and trans men cannot be family men and committed fathers for the simple reason that they cannot acquire anything like the natural authority that was impersonated by the gentleman. This authority is only to be gained by mature men who can control their instincts under any circumstances. Surely the combination of renting a Third-World female womb for breeding a baby from a shot of sperma but at the same time continuing a promiscuous lifestyle is anything but fatherhood and family life. This sort of horrible experiences have been documented by children raised in same-sex households in a book called “Jephta’s daughters” published 2013.

By contrast, for women it has always been much easier to become mothers and single parents which is evident from the dramatic surge of divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births in the West.  Patchwork families or single mothers raising children from multiple fathers produce nightmares of families where every child is being alienated by a different name. Children raised this way fare little better in terms of health, biography or career opportunities than children exposed to high risk same sex arrangements. Well documented research has brought unambiguous results: these children exhibit significant higher rates of educational failure, school drop-out, truancy, drug dependency, diseases, suicide and crippled job opportunities. One of the best kept secrets of the West today is this: being raised by a single mother or by a same-sex couple amounts to a life-long disadvantage for any child.

All of those troubling broken families indicate the arrival of a new matriarchy. Single motherhood is approaching half of all Western households. On the other side of the ideological gap is Islamic polygamy. However most Muslim countries today are favouring monogamy. Yet uprooted immigrants keep invading Europe and the US these days by the hundreds of thousands. The recent scandal over mass abuse of more than thousand white underage girls by Muslim men in Newcastle, Rotherham and elsewhere reveals the sick pattern of matriarchy. The same applies to the spread of campus rape. It was never so easy to have sex for men without becoming a father. Already in the 1970s Phillip Rieff diagnosed the mass neurosis of 20th century concerning sex and therapy. The overall shift from transcendence toward metaphysics or from religion to medicine made itself dramatically felt during the enlightenment in the 18th century. None less than Johann Wolfgang Goethe, the German national poet, saw attributed this to the romantic movement. In his “Italian journey” (Stuttgart 1862) we find an entry dated May 12, 1787 telling us: “Speaking for myself, I too believe that humanity will win in the long run; I am only afraid that at the same time the world will have turned into one huge hospital where everyone is everybody else’s human nurse” (Translation by W.H. Auden and E. Mayer, New York 1962, p. 312).

First published in Geopolitica.

Posted on 09/26/2017 8:39 AM by Friedrich Hansen
Monday, 25 September 2017
Perfume Politics in France

by Michael Curtis

Coco Chanel, 1920

Pecunia non olet ( money doesn't smell) was the reply of the 7th century Roman Emperor Vespasian when he was criticised for imposing a new tax on the use of public urinals in Rome. The death on September  21, 2017, of Liliane Bettencourt, at 94, was a reminder that in early to mid 20th century France perfume, whether devised by Francois Coty, Coco Chanel, or L'Oreal, smelled of money used for vile purposes. All the perfumes of Arabia cannot sweeten the memories of the mischievousness of those perfumiers. Their beauty creams, fragrances, and hair dyes can not overcome the smell of their collaboration with Nazis.

Mme. Bettencourt was  the richest woman in the world, worth about $40 billion, as the heiress of the large L'Oreal cosmetics empire of which she owned about a third. She had inherited her fortune on the death of her father in 1957. Bettencourt was involved in a number of personal, legal  problems and scandals, including illegal donations to the 2007 presidential campaign of Nicolas Sarkozy, but she is important for her relationships with antisemitic and pro-Nazi individuals, and as a reminder of some dark years of the French past. Ironically, as if in rejection of the family past history, her only child, Francoise, married a grandson of a rabbi killed in Auschwitz and converted to Judaism.

The significance of  Liliane Bettencourt is not a matter of the personal scandals or private life, but her kinship with father and her husband, both of whom were associated with far right extreme political organizations and held bigoted and racist especially antisemitic views. Her father was Eugene Schueller who in 1907 invented the non toxic hair dye he called Aureale or Oreale which was the beginning of his fortune. Schueller was a a pro-Nazi supporter of and founder of extreme organizations. In addition he had acquired property taken from Jews; one of those properties became L'0real headquarters in Germany.

Schueller admired Henry Ford's exective managerial activities, but he also admired and adopted Ford's pro-fascist and antisemitic standpoint.

Schueller, with another antisemite and pro-fascist Eugene Deloncle, in October 1940 founded the (MSR) , with help from German Ambassador in Paris, Otto Abetz and approval of  Reinhardt Heydrich. Official meetings of MSR took place at L'Oreal headquarters in Rue Royale, Paris. Deloncle in 1935 had already founded the La Cagoule, the fascist Secret Committee of Revolutionary Action, that Schueller helped fund.

The program of MSR is nauseating and revealing: "to build a new Europe in cooperation with National Socialist Germany and all other nations freed from liberal capitalism, Judaism, bolshevism, and French masons." MRS also wanted to "ensure the Jews that stay in France are subject to harsh laws, preventing them from infesting our race."

Within the MSR was a smaller, private group called The French Community, established with the aid of SS Theo Dannecker, representative of Adolf Eichmann, the aim of which was "to free France completely from the ferments of corruption that are the Jews and the Free Masons," and which organized the looting of Jewish property.

In February 1941 the MSR merged with Marcel Deat's  Rassemblement  national  populaire, RNP. Schuler called for revolution for "cleansing and remedy," and together with Delonce, in June 1941 after Germany attacked the Soviet Union, set up the Legion of French Volunteers, LVF, to fight with Germans on the Eastern front. Members swore an oath of allegiance to Hitler.

A post World War II investigation was opened on Schueller but he was found not guilty of economic collaboration though his book , La Revolution de l'Economie, was essentially a fascist book. It is not coincidental that Francois Mitterand, the rising post war politician, was a friend of Francois Dalle who succeeded Schueller as head of L'Oreal,  that in 1945 Mitterand was appointed director of the L'Oreal magazine, Votre Beaute, owned by Schueller, and that a niece of Deloncle, Schueller's political partner, married the older brother of Mitterand.  

Schieller's daughter Liliane in 1950 married Andre Bettencourt, a Catholic lawyer, who was a bitter antisemite, who knew Mitterand while they were law students in Paris in the 1930s. He had joined La Cagoule and had written a large number of antisemitic articles for La Terre Francaise which he edited. He disseminated Nazi propaganda, is known to have written 60 articles, in some of which which he referred to Jews as "hypocritical Pharisees whose race has been forever sallied by the blood of the righeous, and whose race is tainted with Jesus' blood for all eternity."

Bettencourt claimed to have joined joined the Resistance at the end of the war, a claim that is disputable, and remained friendly with Mitterand. What is more certain is that in July 1944 he travelled to Geneva where he was given, apparently by Alan Dulles and the OSS, a large sum of money, about 2.5 million francs, for French POWs, a sum he passed on to Mitterand. In post war France, Bettencourt was a journalist and served in a number of governmental positions, including intelligence, and almost became prime minister in 1986 when Mitterand was president of France.

The political record of the perfume fraternity is not a savory one. Rene Coty, originally Corsican and a pioneer in a variety of fragrances, allegedly the first French billionaire had a sensitive nose for perfume but a less desirable one for political organizations.  He founded or aided a number of pro Nazi organizations: Faisceau, the French Fascist party, and for a time the Croix-de-Feu; the Solidarite Francaise in 1933, a fascist and paramilitary group. He bought Le Figaro and transformed it into a exteme right wing paper. Coty was bitterly antisemitic, blaming Jewish bankers "for bloody and rapacous policies that ruined the world, for establishing communism, and for the world wide economic depression."

The ambitious Coco Chanel, noted for her fashion style and understated elegance not only slept with the enemy but seemed to have worked for German military intelligence. Living in the luxurious Hotel Ritz, Chanel conducted an affair with a German officer Baron Hans von Dincklage, an Abwehr military intelligence officer who used her as an agent and a facilitator, curiously codenamed Westminster, the name of Chanel's former lover, the Duke of Westminster.

It is not too strong to say that L'Oreal for a time in postwar France was a hiding place for former collaborators or Nazi supporters atempting to hide their wartime past. One of them Jacques Correze, once a member of La Cagoule , became an L'Oreal executive in New York.

Liliane Bettencourt of course was not involved in the political activities in her kinsmen. However, her death at the time of the Jewish New Year and Day of Atonement raises an interesting problem. Her husband Andre Bettencourt in postwar France  said "I have repeatedly expressed my regrets concerning 'the errors of my youth' in public and will always beg the Jewish community to forgive me for them." France is still striving to overcome the sad days of Vichy and to create a friendly and healthy society. For the Jewish community, in view of  contemporary antisemitism, the painful memories remain. 

Posted on 09/25/2017 5:24 AM by Michael Curtis
Showing 1-16 of 93 [Next 15]

Pre-order on Amazon or Amazon UK today!
Enter Goodreads givaway.

Order on Amazon or Amazon UK today!

Order on Amazon or Amazon UK today!



Adam Selene (2) A.J. Caschetta (7) Ahnaf Kalam (2) Alexander Murinson (1) Andrew E. Harrod (2) Andrew Harrod (5) Anne-Christine Hoff (1) Bat Ye'or (6) Bill Corden (6) Bradley Betters (1) Brex I Teer (9) Brian of London (32) Bruce Bawer (23) Carol Sebastian (1) Christina McIntosh (869) Christopher DeGroot (2) Conrad Black (758) Daniel Mallock (5) David Ashton (1) David J. Baldovin (3) David P. Gontar (7) David Solway (78) David Wemyss (1) Devdutta Maji (1) Dexter Van Zile (75) Donald J. Trump (1) Dr. Michael Welner (3) E. B Samuel (1) Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (1) Emmet Scott (1) Eric Rozenman (14) Esmerelda Weatherwax (10124) Fergus Downie (23) Fred Leder (1) Friedrich Hansen (7) G. Murphy Donovan (77) G. Tod Slone (1) Gary Fouse (184) Geert Wilders (13) Geoffrey Botkin (1) Geoffrey Clarfield (350) George Rojas (1) Hannah Rubenstein (3) Hesham Shehab and Anne-Christine Hoff (1) Hossein Khorram (2) Howard Rotberg (31) Hugh Fitzgerald (21503) Ibn Warraq (10) Ilana Freedman (2) James Como (25) James Robbins (1) James Stevens Curl (2) Janet Charlesworth (1) Janice Fiamengo (4) jeffrey burghauser (2) Jenna Wright (1) Jerry Gordon (2523) Jerry Gordon and Lt. Gen. Abakar M. Abdallah (4) Jesse Sandoval (1) John Constantine (122) John Hajjar (6) John M. Joyce (394) John Rossomando (1) Jonathan Ferguson (1) Jonathan Hausman (4) Jordan Cope (1) Joseph S. Spoerl (10) Kenneth Francis (2) Kenneth Hanson (1) Kenneth Lasson (1) Kenneth Timmerman (29) Lawrence Eubank (1) Lev Tsitrin (26) Lorna Salzman (9) Louis Rene Beres (37) Manda Zand Ervin (3) Marc Epstein (9) Mark Anthony Signorelli (11) Mark Durie (7) Mark Zaslav (1) Martha Shelley (1) Mary Jackson (5065) Matthew Hausman (50) Matthew Stewart (2) Michael Curtis (792) Michael Rechtenwald (65) Mordechai Nisan (2) Moshe Dann (1) NER (2594) New English Review Press (134) Nidra Poller (74) Nikos A. Salingaros (1) Nonie Darwish (10) Norman Berdichevsky (86) Paul Oakley (1) Paul Weston (5) Paula Boddington (1) Peter McGregor (1) Peter McLoughlin (1) Philip Blake (1) Phyllis Chesler (239) Rebecca Bynum (7250) Reg Green (34) Richard Butrick (24) Richard Kostelanetz (19) Richard L. Benkin (21) Richard L. Cravatts (7) Richard L. Rubenstein (44) Robert Harris (85) Sally Ross (36) Sam Bluefarb (1) Sam Westrop (2) Samuel Chamberlain (2) Sha’i ben-Tekoa (1) Springtime for Snowflakes (4) Stacey McKenna (1) Stephen Schecter (1) Steve Hecht (35) Sumner Park (1) Ted Belman (8) The Law (90) Theodore Dalrymple (982) Thomas J. Scheff (6) Thomas Ország-Land (3) Tom Harb (4) Tyler Curtis (1) Walid Phares (33) Winfield Myers (1) z - all below inactive (7) z - Ares Demertzis (2) z - Andrew Bostom (74) z - Andy McCarthy (536) z - Artemis Gordon Glidden (881) z - DL Adams (21) z - John Derbyshire (1013) z - Marisol Seibold (26) z - Mark Butterworth (49) z- Robert Bove (1189) zz - Ali Sina (2)
Site Archive