Saturday, July 22, 2017

A New Look at the Death of Europe

By Rael Jean Isaac

With the publication of The Strange Death of Europe, Douglas Murray has made a significant contribution to a crucially important, if still niche genre: the Islamization of Europe. A small number of writers (given the huge impact of this development) have focused on the issue: Bat Yeor, Oriana Fallaci, Mark Steyn, Christopher Caldwell, Bruce Bawer, Soeren Kern, Giulio Meotti, Guy Milliere, Ingrid Carlqvist. This small band is all that confronts the blatant and pervasive coverup by politicians and mainstream media.
Murray’s contribution takes several forms. He brings the story of Europe’s civilizational suicide up to date. He provides a chronological tale of the debacle from the post-World War II importation of what were imagined at the time to be temporary workers from Muslim countries needed to fill labor shortages to the disastrous decision by Angela Merkel in August 2015 to throw open Germany’s borders  without limits, with the slogan “We can do it.” He sets forth Muslim terrorist actions in Europe in punctilious sequence, including those targeting individuals, like the murder of Theo van Gogh and the Charlie Hebdo staff; the attacks against Jews, and the terror aimed at the general public, for example, the Bataclan massacre and the mowing down at random of people celebrating Bastille Day at the Nice beach. He describes the broader challenge to European society posed by Muslims who do not resort to terror, but espouse values wholly at variance with those of their host countries. Most important, he seeks to explain Europe’s “strange” behavior, why Europe is committing suicide with its elites leading a reluctant but passive public over the cliff.
In part, Murray’s explanation does not differ much from that advanced by several of those cited above. In Murray’s words, “The world was coming into Europe at precisely the moment that Europe has lost sight of what it is.” It was a Europe that had lost faith in its beliefs, traditions, its very legitimacy. But Murray is especially good in focusing on the importance of guilt, what he calls Europe’s “unique, abiding, and perhaps fatal sense of and obsession with guilt” in shaping its behavior. While not ignored by others, the role of guilt has not been given the attention it deservedly gets here.
To this reviewer, that the Holocaust should shake Europe’s faith in its civilization is only right and fitting. In the current issue of Commentary Terry Teachout points out how Europe’s great orchestras dutifully fired Jewish members and banned music by Jewish composers even as the music-loving Hitler in 1938 declared “Germany has become the guardian of European culture and civilization.” It can be no surprise if Europeans ask, “How could what Hitler conceived himself as zealously guarding be worth preserving?”
But as Murray sees it, guilt has become a “moral intoxicant” -- Europeans have become “high” on it. They cannot fall back on their Christian faith because their “foundational story” was fatally weakened in the nineteenth century by the combination of Biblical higher criticism and Darwinism. The replacement beliefs in multiculturalism (and Murray quotes Samuel Huntington’s apt observation that multiculturalism is essentially an anti-Western ideology), tolerance, diversity, and “human rights” (as those who have seized control of the issue define them) are no substitute for the fervent divinely-grounded convictions of Islam.  
Murray addresses the puzzling question: why there has been so little pushback from Europeans as they have been inundated by millions committed to ideologies anathema to their own? One reason is that the penalties for speaking out are high.  Murray writes that those who have shouted fire over the years have been treated as arsonists. They have been “ignored, defamed, prosecuted or killed.” The media has been swift to silence those among them who dared to so much as raise the issue. Murray cites the fate of Erik Mansson, editor-in-chief of the Swedish paper Expressen, who as far back as 1993 published the results of an opinion poll showing 63% of Swedes wanted immigrants to return to their countries of origin. Noting the difference between those in power and public opinion, Mansson said he thought the subject should be discussed. The only result was that the paper’s owners promptly fired Mansson.
Being fired is the least of it. Those who are deemed to have “blasphemed” against Islam, whether cartoonists or filmmakers or forthright politicians, are hunted down by Islamists. All the government does in response is put them in hiding, provide guards or force them out of the country. The last is what the government of Holland did to Ayaan Hirsi Ali by taking away her citizenship. As far as government elites are concerned these people are not heroic champions of free speech but nuisances who have brought their troubles on themselves. Indeed the government is likely to join in the persecution, as Tommy Robinson of the English Defense League discovered in Britain and Geert Wilders in Holland, where he has twice been prosecuted by the state for “inciting discrimination and hatred.”
And the Holocaust again intrudes. When movements or political parties form to challenge the establishment parties on immigration, they are promptly labeled “racist” and “anti-Semitic” by the media and as a result neo-Nazis flock to them, making them off-limits to decent people. Murray points out that Geert Wilders is the only member of his party for precisely this reason. He fears that if he makes it a membership party skinheads will join and although he forfeits state funding (which depends on party size), he sees it as a necessary price to prevent neo-Nazis from possibly ruining the party.
The leadership of a few EU countries (all of them in Eastern Europe) have dared to confront the majority on Muslim immigration. Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and now, the Czech Republic, have all refused to take in what the EU has determined is their “quota” of immigrants. The most articulate member of the dissidents, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, has been defiant and blunt, saying the immigrant wave masquerades as a humanitarian cause but its true nature is occupation of territory. And he reminds the EU (although Murray surprisingly does not mention this) that Hungary was dominated by Islam for 150 years -- and knows far better than Western elites what it is like to live with Muslim communities. The response of EU leaders is to treat Orban as a moral pariah and to punish the rebellious countries financially in the hope of forcing them to back down.
Murray is not optimistic about the future. He offers reforms -- for example, finding ways to settle would-be migrants closer to their home countries, processing asylum requests abroad, evicting those whose claims to asylum have been rejected (most remain after they have been ordered to leave), ceasing and desisting the automatic demonization as “racists” of any party that raises objections to existing policy, among others.
But Murray sees scant chance of the reforms he suggests being enacted. Instead he sees the gap between political leaders and public opinion becoming more explosive. Murray reports on a survey of public opinion in 10 European countries released by the British think tank Chatham House in February 2017. In eight out of the ten (including Germany) a majority agreed with the statement “All further migration from Muslim countries should be stopped.” In Britain, one of the two where the majority disagreed, “only” 47% were in favor of halting all Muslim immigration. Ignoring public opinion as morally deficient, the governing elite go on its merry way. Murray offers a telling anecdote from the small city of Kassel in the state of Hesse. Eight hundred immigrants were due to be deposited on Kassel and residents organized a meeting to ask questions of their politicians. A video of the meeting shows calm, polite but concerned citizens. At one point, the district president Walter Lubcke tells them that anyone who does not agree with the policy “is free to leave Germany.” Like those assembled who gasp and then hoot in anger, Murray is astounded: “A whole new population is being brought into their country and they are told to leave if they don’t like it?”
Thus far politicians have been able to beat back all challenges to their policies by tarring political parties that rise to oppose them as “racist,” “neo-Nazi,” or fascist.  Murray fears precisely because of this success in marginalizing even those parties that seek to bar extremist elements, when the reaction finally comes it will be ugly. His last words: “Prisoners of the past and of the present, for Europeans there seem finally to be no decent answers to the future. Which is how the fatal blow will finally land.”
There are a few omissions in this excellent book. Murray does not sufficiently emphasize the coming together of Islamic elements with the far left, despite the huge differences between them on social issues. It is the radical left that passes out flyers telling failed asylum seekers how to outwit the system. Claiming the moral high ground, it is the radical left that organizes the boats that hug the Libyan shore, so that traffickers don’t even have to bother filling gas tanks on the miserable receptacles loaded with humanity they push out to sea. Murray refers to the way elites ignore the deep-seated anti-Semitism of the Muslim arrivals, even as they are quick to discredit anti-immigration parties with automatic charges of anti-Semitism. But Murray fails to point out the huge irony: largely on the basis of a sense of guilt for the Holocaust, Europe’s elites are embracing a population which in short order will make it impossible for the Jewish communities of Europe, rebuilt since the Holocaust, to remain there.
Lamenting the vacuum left by the retreat of Christianity, Murray writes that it is unlikely anyone is going to be able to invent an entirely new set of beliefs. He overlooks completely the movement that has provided a substitute set of beliefs to a significant part of the European public. That movement is environmentalism, a resurgence of paganism (with the earth as mother goddess) which has the great advantage of being antagonistic to Western culture -- for its sin of despoiling the earth. The global warming apocalypse is the most recent environmental dogma. Professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at MIT Richard Lindzen, who unlike most of those who hold forth on the climate, is an expert on the subject, compares the pseudoscience of global warming to Lysenkoism.  Lindzen writes: “A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.” 
Europe hangs in the balance. For all the chatter about terror by politicians and media (with caveats that this has nothing to do with the religion of peace, of course), the seismic changes, including the population replacement by proponents of a sharply different culture, are all but ignored. Murray’s clear and humane exposition of the seismic changes and the abject failure of political elites to face up to them gives those not willfully blind an opportunity to see.

Friday, July 21, 2017

Migrant Sex Attacks in German State Double From Last Year

The number of sexual assaults by asylum seekers recorded in the German state of Baden-Württemberg in 2016 close to doubled from the 2015 recorded figure.

According to the Ministry of the Interior, the number of crimes of a sexual nature committed by asylum seekers in the state rose from 256 in 2015 to 482 in 2016, with the majority of offenders in this category hailing from Afghanistan and Syria.
The figures come after a traditional German festival in the state descended into chaos at the weekend as groups of young men  — many of them migrants according to police  — rioted, attacked officers, and launched sex attacks.
During its opening weekend on 15 and 16 July, nine sexual assaults were reported to have taken place at the folk fair in Schorndorf Castle, Baden-Württemberg, for which police were investigating suspects from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Clashes broke out on Sunday evening between two groups of youths with migration backgrounds, according to the festival organiser.
When police arrived, they were showered with glass bottles and had to equip protective clothing and call for reinforcements from neighbouring counties, while six police cars were vandalised and sprayed with graffiti.
“The level of violence faced by police was frightening,” said a force spokesman, adding: “What really struck us about the event was the aggression, which was completely unprecedented.”
Earlier in the week, police president Roland Eisele refused to disclose what proportion of the rampaging crowds were foreigners, and while police later insisted that some German youths were involved in the disorder, they admitted that a large share of the group were from “migrant backgrounds”.
“Schorndorf is a symbol of what is happening on a daily basis in many places in Germany,” said Jens Spahn, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative CDU party.
“It is becoming ever more clear how big the task of integration is. Too many people are of the opinion that every other culture is an enrichment. I do not feel that the everyday debasement that women experience is an enrichment,” he added.

Council Officials Delayed Investigating Labour Paedophile to Improve Party’s Election Prospects

Officials working for Bury Council delayed investigating paedophilia allegations against a Labour politician in order to improve the party’s election prospects, according to inquiry reports seen by local media.

Tottington councillor Simon Carter had previously been employed by Oldham Council but was sacked after he was seen looking at sexual images of “pre-teens” on his computer.
Bury Council did not know this at the time of his election, but now-former chief executive Mike Owen was tipped off by an Oldham Council officer who thought the local authority should be aware of Carter’s situation.
The Manchester Evening News, which claims to have seen the findings of two internal investigations into the matter, reports that Owen sat on the information, failing to inform Children’s Services or the governors of the school boards Carter was involved with – which included a Tory councillor.
The only person Owen informed of the allegations was Labour council leader Mike Connolly, described as a “close personal friend” of Carter’s. The politician is said to have described this as a “heads up”.
Children’s Services director Mark Carriline was not made aware of the allegations until eight days later – when the same Oldham Council officer who had contacted Owen rang him.
Carriline and Owen then held a private meeting, deciding that a safeguarding investigation would have to be held but delaying it for another week and breaking a number of strict procedural rules.
For example, they did not provide the liaison officer legally charged with advising those connected with Carter, including schools, with relevant information about the investigation’s progress  – despite repeated requests – for weeks, by which time the councillor had been arrested on suspicion of downloading indecent images of children following a police raid.
“I am left with the conclusion that appropriate procedures put in place to handle allegations were sidestepped because of the overwhelming ambition to keep this information under wraps,” concluded childcare expert Malcolm Newsam, who authored one of the two investigation reports.
“It has been put to me that given the impending elections, that the driving motive was to ensure that the concerns in respect of Councillor [Carter] were not known to political opponents.
“Given that there was an opposition elected member on the governing body it is difficult not to come to the same conclusion.”
Carter was ultimately convicted of downloading dozens of indecent images, including the most extreme Category A type, but only received a three-year community order from Judge Timothy Stead, who noted that “The letters of testimony written on your behalf are impressive” in sentencing.
These included a glowing reference from aforementioned Labour council leader Mike Connolly, who wrote that he had “known Simon Carter both as a friend and colleague for over 12 years,” and that, in his estimation, the crimes were “totally out of character”.
Both Owen and Carriline have resigned from their posts, and Councillor Connolly has submitted himself to a Standards investigation.

Damning study: ‘German Main Stream Media biased and uncritical during migrant crisis’

In what way did digital media report on the countless events from the spring of 2015 to the spring to 2016? How did the three leading papers comment on the most important theme of the year? How can their commentary be analysed? And the local and regional press? How did they deal with the theme of “Willkomsenskultur” (the perceived need for welcoming refugees)?
These are a few of the questions asked in an ambitious study by the Otto Brenner Stiftung, the academic Bureau of the German metalworkers’ trade union. To find answers to these and other questions, the Foundation studied about 35.000 articles and subjected them to an array of analytical questions. The findings, to be officially presented on Monday, can be found in an impressive report (PDF).
According to an article in Zeit Online, the report can be summarised by saying that Germany has suffered a media power-outage, which negatively impacted society. Not only did the ‘mainstream media’ rally behind Angela Merkel’s refugee-policy, it accepted solutions by the political elite without criticism. The media even employed a “euphemistic-persuasive form of speech” with the intent of spreading the idea of ‘Willkomenskultur’. Those who did not toe the line taken by the government, were deemed suspect of xenophobia in the eyes of a lot of journalists.
Critics, the study implies, had to be taught to be better people, using arguments like: Germany needs hundredthousends of young refugees, for their labour and to counter the aging of the population. In this way ‘the Willkommenskultur was transformed into a kind of magic word’, with which ‘the voluntary services of citizens, as a kind of good Samaritans, could be forced by making it some kind of moral duty.
One of the conclusions reached is that for the three most important national papers (Süddeutsche Zeitung, Der Spiegel, Frankfurter Algemeine) are focussed, not on the news as such, but on the political elite. According to the study, this is nothing new, and is a well-known phenomenon called ‘indexing’ in American research.
Almost 20% of the articles on the refugee crisis are commentaries – an unusually high percentage, which betrays the striking preference for opinions of the newspaper editors. Furthermore, the report states that the most important criterion for journalistic quality, reporting in a neutral way, in almost half of all cases is not maintained:
All three newspaper editors comment on the mega theme ‘refugees/asylumseeker’ very intensively. The analysis of these opinion based articles (Lead articles, editorials, etc.) confirm the findings we referred to earlier: seven out of ten relevant actors are part of the political elite. In the context of the ‘indexing’-thesis, the target audience for these commentaries is not the readers, but politicians. The arguments mostly deal with political proposals that have a practical nature. Until the end of the autumn of 2015 there is hardly a commentary published about the worries, fears and the resistance of a growing part of the population. And if they are published, they take on a condescending or (towards the Eastern German regions) despising tone. Hardly a single commentary in the so-called critical period (August and September) tried to differentiate between right-wing radicals and politically insecure, worried citizens that felt neglected. The published commentaries didn’t aim to discuss different points of view, but to emphasise the convictions of the writers, in particularly those of the policymakers.
What is also remarkable, is what the report calls the absence of interest in citizens.
Even in January 2016, with regard to the New Year’s Eve drama, there is no appreciation for those that take care, or should take care, of those involved: representatives of church organisations, or experts of social instutions. Instead, and all the more frequently, representatives of the political elite enter the media-fray. It is surprising that in the autumn and winter of 2015/16 in the Süddeutschen Zeitung and the Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung the presence of the political elite (Federal Government, Ministers, Members of Parliament, leading members of political parties) didn’t decrease, but rose to around 80%. Here, on a structural level, was shown the paradox that the more the crisis raged in the streets of Germany’s cities and municipalities, the more intense the media interacted with the political levels furthest removed from them.

It would seem that the term ‘Lügenpresse’, the lying media, might have more than a kernel of truth in it. It is not so much ‘fake news’, as it is deliberate non-news.

Brexit: EU Blocks UK Checking Criminal History of European Migrants

The European Union (EU) is attempting to block the UK from carrying out criminal record checks on EU citizen seeking “settled status” in the U.K. after Brexit.

The issue proved a major sticking point in yesterday’s negotiations – despite the UK’s team, led by Brexit secretary David Davis, making it clear they were happy for UK citizens in EU nations to undergo similar checks.
The EU’s chief negotiator Michael Barnier and his team also reiterated their hardline demand for EU courts to retain supremacy over British ones in the area of citizen’s rights after the UK leaves the bloc.
More than three million EU citizens live in the UK who could be subject to the checks, but the EU said the checks should only be carried out based on reasonable suspicion, an insider told The Times.
As is the current policy for non-European immigrants, the UK simply wants to deport those who have committed a crime after the event of Brexit, where the sentence is more than 12 months.
The EU, however, claims systematic checks would be impermissible under EU law and wants to oversee less stringent checks with their own courts.
They also want their courts to continue overseeing citizens rights after Brexit, something strongly opposed by the UK, which has been described as a form of judicial “imperialism” by MPs and experts, who claim it would make EU citizens a privileged class with more rights than Brits.
The issues were two of 14 so-called “red lines” laid out by the EU on the topic of citizen’s right in discussions that will have to be dealt with before negotiations can move on to Britain’s future trading relationship.
Some may be possible to overcome, but others appear intractable. The EU, for example, is determined its existing, more relaxed, approach to deportations will apply, rather than the stricter approach favored by the UK.

Just over a week ago, Moody’s Investors Service said the probability of the UK walking away from the EU without a deal is now “substantial”.

‘I Want to Die for Allah’ Shouted Migrant Who Stabbed Police Officer

An immigrant shouted ‘I want to die for Allah’ as he was escorted away after attacking a police officer with a knife in Italy.

The 31-year-old Guinean man, identified as Saidou Mamoud Diallo, was immobilised and arrested on Monday afternoon [July 17] for attempted murder, Corriere della Sera reports.
According to the paper, Diallo was seen near Central Station in Milan where airport shuttles depart.
An airport shuttle attendant noticed him shouting and asked if he needed something, at which point he pulled out a knife and made threats.
The shuttle crew barricaded themselves in the shuttle bus in fear of Diallo, who was visibly distressed and shaking his knife. The bus occupants then called the police.
When police attended and restrained Diallo, he managed to attack one of the officers in the shoulder. Fortunately the police officer, who was taken to hospital, was wearing a bullet proof vest and only suffered a minor injury.
Investigations revealed that Diallo, who had no identification on him when he was apprehended, had given the authorities four other pseudonyms when stopped in the past for, among others, threatening behaviour and resistance to public officials. He also had an extradition order issued to him on July 4.
Roberto Maroni, president of the Lombardy region, wrote on his Facebook page: “He was subject to an extradition order from the Sondrio Police headquarters, yet he moved in our territory free and undisturbed.
I express solidarity with the affected officer and all forces of order that guarantee our security and defend us from these crazy criminals every day.”
Silvia Sardone, a Milan City councillor from the centre-right Forza Italia party, said: “An emergency situation has been underestimated for years by the left in this town, which continues to oppose a serious security plan in the area to counteract crime and degradation.”
She accused the left of preferring “the squalor of hundreds of immigrants” to trying to “save this area, entry gate to so many tourists in the city.”
The paper states that the police are not currently treating the incident as a terrorist attack, as there is nothing to suggest Diallo has been radicalised.
The incident is similar to another which took place in the same area in May, when a half Tunisian man attacked a policeman and two soldiers with a kitchen knife.

Study: German Media Was Wholly ‘Uncritical’ During Migrant Crisis

A new study has slammed German media companies accusing them  of promoting the government line and being entirely uncritical of the migrant crisis, instead, spreading only the ideas of “welcome culture.”

The study, carried out by the Hamburg Media School and the University of Leipzig, claims that the mainstream German media took the government policy of German Chancellor Angela Merkel on board without criticism and actively promoted pro-migrant rhetoric. The researchers said the media had adopted the “solutions of the political elite,” Die Welt reports.
Researchers looked at several thousand articles from February 2015 to March 2016 in major publications like Die Welt, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Süddeutsche Zeitung, and the tabloid Bild, as well as various regional publications to reach their conclusions.
Professor Michael Haller, who headed the study, said that the conclusions show a structural problem in German media. “Large sections of journalists have misunderstood their professional role and neglected the enlightenment function of the media,” Haller said.
One newspaper that was not included in the study was the left-leaning weekly Die Zeit which Professor Haller did criticise for its coverage of the migrant crisis. He said the paper promoted “too much good-humankind sentimentality,” and noted that those in charge had, “too few critical inquiries to the authorities.”
Die Zeit editor and publisher Josef Joffe stirred controversy earlier this year when he remarked on a political television programme that “murder in the White House” could be a way to end the “Trump catastrophe.”
German media has also been accused by many of downplaying events that present migrants in a negative light, like the Cologne New Year’s Eve sex attacks that initially received very little coverage in the mainstream press. It took the German press weeks before admitting that many of the perpetrators of the attacks came from migrant backgrounds.
Other media have also sharply criticised over their coverage of the murder and rape case of young student Maria Ladenburger last year. German public broadcaster ARD failed to report on the case, despite the national outrage, claiming that it was “too regional” to be covered.
The bias of the mainstream media in Germany has led to the resurgence of the world “lugenpresse” or lying press, by those who oppose mass migration and Islamisation like the PEGIDA movement.
Founder of PEGIDA Lutz Bachmann used the term last year in an exclusive interview with Breitbart London in which he described the German press as failing to be objective regarding himself or the movement.

The Jewashing of George Soros: Millions of Jews are anti-Semitic for calling out an anti-Semite

George Soros hates Jews.
He collaborated with the Nazis during the Holocaust and insisted that helping confiscate property from Jews brought him no guilt. “There was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets that if I weren't there of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would.” He described the season of these horrors as “the most exciting time of my life.”
Soros grew up in a "Jewish, anti-Semitic home". He called his mother a “typical Jewish anti-Semite” who hated his first wife because she was “too Jewish”. After undergoing psychoanalysis, he was able to understand that his shame was rooted in his Jewishness. He had a special contempt for Jewish philanthropies after a failed attempt to defraud a Jewish charity in London.
He was booed when he undermined the presentation of an award to a Holocaust survivor by comparing Israeli Jews to Nazis. Elie Wiesel had declared in disgust, “I heard what happened. If I’d been there—and you can quote me—I would have walked out.”
That same year, Soros blamed the Israeli government for a “resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe”. He might have been more honest if he took responsibility considering his funding of groups that traffic in anti-Semitic smears. And his own anti-Semitic allegations that “attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby's success in suppressing divergent views."
Soros has defended Hamas and Hezbollah who have called for the extermination of the Jews. He championed the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt despite or because of its support for Hitler. Yusuf al-Qaradawi had claimed that Hitler had been sent by Allah to punish the Jews. “Allah willing,” the Brotherhood’s spiritual leader said, “the next time will be at the hands of the believers (Muslims)."
There’s no denying that George Soros is a warped and twisted man. Especially when it comes to the Jews. But he’s also the money man behind a great deal of leftist activism. Especially anti-Israel activism.
And so he must be defended.
An editorial at New York Times by a figure linked to the +972 anti-Israel hate site decries “Israel’s War Against George Soros”. That’s right up there with Poland’s war on Nazi Germany.
What does this war consist of? Has Israel sent drones to the Soros estate? Did Mossad agents drag George out of his featherbed to face the justice of those injured through his actions?
The “war” consisted of one statement. The Israeli Foreign Ministry condemned Soros for “continuously undermining Israel’s democratically elected governments,” and backing hate groups “that defame the Jewish state and seek to deny it the right to defend itself.” Not only is it true, but it’s underwhelming.
Even by the low fake news standards of today’s extremist media, you expect something more from a headline screaming “Israel’s War Against George Soros” than a single restrained criticism.
Do the thousands of hit pieces from the New York Times count as a “War on Israel? That includes the aforementioned Mairav Zonszein screed on Soros which in true Sorosesque fashion pivots from defending an anti-Semite to launching bizarre and hopelessly factless smears at the Jewish State.
Mairav claims that Israel is now aligned with “illiberal, autocratic states like Russia, Turkey and Egypt.” That would be news to Turkey which just accused Israel of a “crime against humanity” and backs Hamas. Or to Russia, which backs Iran and whose S-300 missiles guard Iran’s nuclear program against an Israeli strike. But using the stopped clock principle, getting one of three right isn’t bad for the New York Times.
Soros and the Times were aligned with the illiberal autocratic Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt under a leader who had urged Muslims to “nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred” of the Jews.
But there’s nothing anti-Semitic to see there.
According to the New York Times, criticizing an anti-Semite whose Jewishness can only be found with a DNA analysis is anti-Semitic, but attacking millions of Jews defending themselves against genocide isn’t.
The government that represents millions of Jews is anti-Semitic for calling out a left-wing anti-Semite. And the millions of Jews, and even the recently deceased Elie Wiesel, probably are too.
According to Mairav Zonszein, Israel’s criticism of Soros aligns it with anti-Semites. “It takes some gall on the part of Mr. Netanyahu to choose this moment to kick Mr. Soros while he’s down — not only because Mr. Soros is, once again, a victim of anti-Semitism,” Mairav fumes.
By “down”, Mairav means he’s the world’s 22nd richest man and dictates policy to entire governments.
Mr. Soros has not refrained from kicking Israeli families when they were being shot and stabbed by Islamic terrorists. He hasn’t stopped funding hate against Jews or blaming Jews for anti-Semitism.
George Soros funds BDS, an organization run by a terrorist and one that defends the murder of Jews. But there’s mean ole Mr. Netanyahu kicking the 22nd richest man in the world when he’s down.
This shameless Jewashing is despicable and typical. The left shrugs at the murderous anti-Semitism in the Muslim world. And at times it even defends it. It loves Jewashing its hatred of Jews by putting activists with a Jewish last name up front in its anti-Semitic activities. And it will defend anti-Semites like George Soros as victims of anti-Semitism at the hands of the government of millions of Jews.
When it’s convenient, George Soros takes a break from fond recollections of the most exciting time in his life, helping rob Jews, to play a victim of the Holocaust. And if it’s useful, he’ll even take a break from defending Hamas and Hezbollah, from funding the types of terrorists who call the murder of Jews “resistance” and from supporting Islamist groups that praise Hitler, to play the victim of anti-Semitism.
George Soros hates Jews. So do his apologists and supporters. They just can’t say so in public. Yet.
There are a thousand euphemisms. They’re not anti-Semites, they’re anti-Zionists. Yes, they just happen to be reviving the Nazi boycott against the Jews. And their favorite Muslim Brotherhood hate groups drew organizational inspiration from the Third Reich. But they’re only concerned for social justice. The social justice they’re concerned with just happens to require the persecution of the Jews. They just happen to disrupt Holocaust memorial events and Jewish holidays to bring attention to the cause of the oppressed Muslim terrorists whose heroic figures had egged on Hitler to wipe out the Jews.
And if you doubt their commitment to opposing anti-Semitism, watch them defend George Soros. Then when the Jewashing is done, they can go back to demanding that we fund the terrorists murdering Jews.
George Soros is not a Holocaust survivor. He has spent much of his life collaborating with totalitarian movements whose goal is the extermination of the Jewish people.
He is not a victim of anti-Semitism. He is a perpetrator of anti-Semitism.
The only thing more despicable than the left’s obsessive hatred of Jews is its Jewashing of anti-Semites. Hating Jews is anti-Semitic no matter what your last name might be. Collaborating with the murderers of Jews is attempted genocide no matter what your DNA may say. When you defend Hamas, fund BDS and defend anti-Semitism, no amount of lies and spin will Jewash your hatred and guilt away.

Sweden: A Failed State?

The security situation in Sweden is now so critical that the national police chief, Dan Eliasson, has asked the public for help; the police are unable to solve the problems on their own. In June, the Swedish police released a new report, "Utsatta områden 2017", ("Vulnerable Areas 2017", commonly known as "no-go zones" or lawless areas). It shows that the 55 no-go zones of a year ago are now 61.
In September 2016, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven and Minister of Interior Anders Ygeman refused to see the warnings: in 2015, only 14% of all crimes in Sweden were solved, and in 2016, 80% of police officers were allegedly considering quitting the force. Both ministers refused to call it a crisis. According to Anders Ygeman:
"... we are in a very difficult position, but crisis is something completely different. ...we are in a very strained position and this is because we have done the biggest reorganization since the 1960s, while we have these very difficult external factors with the highest refugee reception since the Second World War. We have border controls for the first time in 20 years, and an increased terrorist threat".
A year later the Swedish national police chief is calling the situation "acute".Sweden increasingly resembles a failed state: In the 61 "no-go zones", there are 200 criminal networks with an estimated 5,000 criminals who are members. Twenty-three of those no-go zones are especially critical: children as young as 10 years old are involved in serious crimesthere, including weapons and drugs, and are literally being trained to become hardened criminals.
The trouble, however, extends beyond organized crime. In June, Swedish police in the city of Trollhättan, during a riot in the Kronogården suburb, were attacked by approximately a hundred masked migrant youths, mainly Somalis. The rioting continued for two nights.
Violent riots, however, are just part of Sweden's security problems. In 2010, according to the government, there were "only" 200 radical Islamists in Sweden. In June, the head of the Swedish Security Service (Säpo), Anders Thornberg, told the Swedish media that the country is experiencing a "historical" challenge in having to deal with thousands of "radical Islamists in Sweden". The jihadists and jihadist supporters are mainly concentrated in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö and Örebro, according to Säpo. "This is the 'new normal' ... It is an historic challenge that extremist circles are growing," Thornberg said.
The Swedish establishment has only itself to blame for it.
Thornberg said that Säpo now receives around 6,000 intelligence tips a month concerning terrorism and extremism, compared to an average of 2,000 a month in 2012.
Some of the reasons for the increase, according to terror expert Magnus Ranstorp of the Swedish Defense University, is due to segregation in Sweden's no-go zones:
"... it has been easy for extremists to recruit undisturbed in those areas. ...the prevention measures have been pretty tame... if you compare Denmark and Sweden, Denmark is at university level and Sweden at kindergarten level".
Asked what the increase in people supporting extremist ideologies indicated about Sweden's work to combat radicalism, Interior Minister Anders Ygeman told the Swedish news outlet TT:
"I think it says little. This is a development we have seen in a number of countries in Europe. On the other hand, it shows that it was right to take those measures we have. A permanent centre against violent extremism, that we have increased the budget to work against violent extremism, that we have increased the security police's budget for three years."
There may be even more jihadists than Säpo thinks. In 2015, at the height of the migrant crisis, when Sweden received over 160,000 migrants, 14,000 of them who were told that they were going to be deported disappeared inside Sweden without a trace. As late as April 2017, Sweden was still looking for 10,000 of them. Sweden, however, has only 200 border police staff at its disposal to look for them. One "disappeared migrant" was Rakhmat Akilov, from Uzbekistan. He drove a truck into a department store in Stockholm, killing four people and wounding many others. He later said he did it for the Islamic State (ISIS).
Meanwhile, Sweden continues to receive returning ISIS fighters from Syria, a courtesy that hardly improves the security situation. Sweden, so far, has received 150 returning ISIS fighters. There are still 112 who remain abroad -- considered the most hardcore of all -- and Sweden expects many of those to return as well. Astonishingly, the Swedish government has given several of the ISIS returnees protected identities to prevent local Swedes from finding out who they are. Two Swedish ISIS fighters who returned to Europe, Osama Krayem and Mohamed Belkaid, went on to help commit the terror attacks at Brussels airport and the Maelbeek metro station in the center of Brussels, on March 22, 2016. Thirty-one people were killed; 300 were wounded.
Swedish news outlets have reported that the Swedish towns that receive the returnees do not even know they are returning ISIS fighters. One coordinator of the work against violent Islamist extremism in Stockholm, Christina Kiernan, says that " the moment there is no control over those returning from ISIS-controlled areas in the Middle East".
Kiernan explains that there are rules that prevent the passing of information about returning jihadists from Säpo to the local municipalities, so that the people who are in charge in the municipal authorities, including the police, have no information about who and how many returned ISIS fighters there are in their area. It is therefore impossible to monitor them -- and this at a time when Säpo estimates the number of violent Islamist extremists in Sweden in the thousands.
Even after all this, the Swedish state, in true Orwellian style, fights those Swedish citizens who point out the obvious problems that migrants are causing. When police officer Peter Springare said in February that migrants were committing a disproportionate amount of crime in the suburbs, he was investigated for inciting "racial hatred".
Currently, a 70-year-old Swedish pensioner is being prosecuted for "hate speech", for writing on Facebook that migrants "set fire to cars, and urinate and defecate on the streets".
With thousands of jihadists all over Sweden, what could be more important than prosecuting a Swedish pensioner for writing on Facebook?

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Effects of Centuries of Extreme Inbreeding Among Muslims: Low IQ, Violence and Terrorism

Taboo: Almost half of Muslims are inbred. How does that affect intelligence and health? And is there a connection to terrorism and violence?

Lise Egholm, longtime school leader in the Muslim-dominated area of Nørrebro in Copenhagen, Denmark, recently warned against not talking about the widespread practise of inbreeding among Muslims“A study shows that infant mortality doubles, along with a high risk of congenital malformations, also that increased birth defect rates and inheritance of recessive traits are more common in consanguineous marriages. I think it’s time to express concern. We must talk about this problem. All parents want healthy children. Fortunately, we live in a society where our health system does much to ensure that a pregnancy ends with a viable child. What amazes me and has made me wonder for years is why we do not talk about, maybe they even ban, the many cousin marriages?”
While health systems in otherwise less-developed countries in the Muslim world are openly discussing and warning against consanguineous marriages, it is considered politically incorrect in the West to regard as a problem the vast genetic and societal difficulties resulting from this religious-cultural practise.
Statistical research on Arabic countries shows that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguineous (cousin marriages), 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (southern area in Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arab Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs). In Pakistan, 70 percent of marriages are consanguineous, and in Turkey, the percentage is 25-30. There seems to be no national data on Indonesia, but there are reports on 17 percent consanguinity on East Timor and a high level of consanguineous marriages in some areas of Java.”
Full story at

BBC’s Top Earners Opposed Brexit and Controlling Migration

A high proportion of top earners at the BBC have railed against Brexit and controlled migration, voicing broadly left-wing views.

With Wednesday’s disclosure of BBC salaries, funded by ordinary Brits forced to pay the TV license fee, many people have a renewed interest in the views promoted by those they sustain.
Strikingly, the list of 100 BBC employees contains few right-wingers or prominent supporters of Brexit – Andrew Neil, who edits the pro-Brexit magazine The Spectator, being a lonely exception.

Gary Lineker – £1,750,000-£1,799,999

The former footballer and presenter was the second most highly-paid person at the BBC.
In recent months, he has become a well known pro-mass migration activist, accusing people who disagree with him of being racist and bigoted.
He famously called those questioning the age of so-called “child migrants” arriving in the UK from Calais “hideously racist” and spread fake claims that older-looking migrants were, in fact, adult interpreters.

Chris Evans – £2,200,000-£2,249,999

The best-rpaid man the BBC, Evans recently quit his position after destroying the ratings of Top Gear, previously the corporation’s best grossing show, during his short period as host.
Mr Evans also appears to be a committed left-winger. He pledged a whopping £100,000 in 2000 to former London Mayor ‘Red’ Ken Livingston – a committed ally of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who was recently suspended from the party for alleged anti-Semitism.

Graham Norton – £850,000-£899,999

The flamboyant presenter was another face at the BBC strongly opposed to leaving the EU. He blamed the vote on the elderly, suggested voters were duped by a “pack of lies”, and called for a second referendum.
“I was astonished that people bought the pack of lies they were sold and I feel sorry for the people who voted for it because they were lied to,” Mr Norton told the Irish ‘Late Late’ host Ryan Tubridy.
“What is so sad about Brexit is that people over 60 – because it was people over 60 passed that thing – closed so many doors on young people and shut down options”, he added.

Simon Schama – £150,000-199,999

The historian and broadcaster has relentlessly agitated against Breixt and claiming the nation will be much diminished when it leaves the EU.

Brian Cox – £250,000-299,999

The presenter, astrophysicist, and former musician shared an anti-Brexit article with his thousands of followers on social media and claimed the nation would take years to “recover” from the vote to leave the EU.

Alan Yentob – £250,000-299,999

He received his huge salary for presenting the little-known arts show ‘Imagine’.
A known left-winger, he has urged the nation to take more migrants and was a chairman of the disgraced charity Kids Company, which squandered millions in taxpayers money.
The now defunct organisation also spent cash on helping illegal migrants stay in the UK.