RUTHFULLY YOURS

Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism Paperback – November 25, 2014

Students of ancient history will recall that, back when the Anglican Communion described a form of the Christian religion, there were thirty nine articles [1] universally promulgated within the faith. These declarations were meant to describe the basic elements of the confession, and paid up members of the confraternity were expected to assent in their hearts (and sometimes publically, by an oath) to the substance articulated therein. You can get a good feel for what the thirty-nine articles required by savoring the first two:

Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man.
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

Quaint, what? James Burnham was perhaps the most underrated political philosopher of the twentieth century. A month or two back Encounter Books published a new edition of his Cold-War classic Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism [2]. The book has a great deal to recommend it. Though published in 1964, when the Soviet colossus had yet begun to teeter, it is if anything more pertinent to our situation today, circa 2015, when Communism is hibernating but totalitarian Islam is on the march. Burnham’s book was Janus-faced: one the one hand, he had a lot to say about the totalitarian threat of Soviet Communism. Mutatis mutandis, what he says there applies also to the threat of militant Islam. But in his efforts to account for the “contraction of the West,” Burnham the diagnostician also looked inward, at the beating heart of liberalism.

Who were the liberals Burnham was talking about? He proposed a list of thirty-nine propositions as a means of identification. Readers were invited to look them over and say whether they agreed or disagreed “by and large, without worrying over fine points.” I invite my readers to take the same quiz.

Among the most pernicious consequences of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) movement has been the wedge driven between Israel and liberal Americans, including liberal American Jews. The relentless misappropriation of human rights and anti-racist discourse, the slanderous talk of Israeli “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide,” and the bitter, ad hominem attacks against Israelis, their international supporters, and the peace process itself have taken a severe toll on American civil discourse.

It is therefore especially dismaying to see the new call by leading American Jewish figures of the academic left, most prominently Michael Walzer of Princeton University, Todd Gitlin of Columbia University, and Alan Wolfe of Boston University, for sanctions against right-wing Israeli politicians whom they deem “annexationist.” These academics, 14 in all, are members of the “Scholars for Israel and Palestine,” a subgroup of the leftist pro-Israel, anti-BDS organization called “The Third Narrative.” They state that these views are their own, not The Third Narrative’s as a whole. (The declaration is available here on The Third Narrative’s web site.)

Jean Patrick Grumberg journalist. Former lobbyist, he lived in Paris, then in Los Angeles and Tel Aviv, and lives between California and Israel. It is contributing to the website Dreuz and other English and French media.
September 30, 1938, France signed the Munich Agreement to appease Hitler. Back in France, Daladier was acclaimed.
7, 8 and 9 January 2015, affected by the terrorist horror, French leaders, the media, to appease Islam and the suburbs, do not uttered the word jihad, nor the word Islam, and made no reference to the prohibition to reproduce the Prophet Mohammed. They do not conjured the verses of the Qur’an and hadith which order to kill those who lacks respect, and wage war to the Crusaders and Jews to submit them.
A voice rose in 1938 against the cowardly capitulation allies. Churchill “you had the choice between war and dishonor.You chose dishonor, and you will have war. »
In 2015, tragically, no voice denounces dishonor and capitulation of France.
You are not Charlie
Charlie refused censorship and prohibition to represent the prophet of Islam. You are censored to appease Islam.
In 2005, Charlie has published the cartoons of Mohammed that the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten had printed “to contribute to the debate on criticism of Islam and self-censorship.”
Media, you had not published the cartoons of the prophet. You had not supported Charlie. You were not Charlie.

You never had the guts to criticize Islam and defy censorship.
Do not claim courage, freedom of speech you do not. Do not say you’re Charlie.

You are not Charlie, you’ve never been.

On January 7, the day of the attack on Charlie Hebdo, instead of displaying solidarity with its struggle against self-censorship, you still chose appeasement and submission. You do not have published the cartoons that have caused the death of their authors. You are not Charlie, you’ve never been.
You had the choice between war against censorship of Islam and disgrace. You chose dishonor, you have the confidence, and you’ll have Islam.

Are our political and cultural establishments connected to reality? Evidence shows that they are not.

On January 7th we saw the political, intellectual, and mainstream media establishments around the world stare with dropped jaws and frozen saucer eyes at the massacre of twelve people in the offices of Charlie Hebdo. The spectacle was worthy of a “deer in the headlights” Charlie Hebdo cartoon.

In the wake of the attacks, those establishments went into full denial mode. They repaired to the Club of Denial for a sleep-over.

They’ve had time to sleep on the event, recover from the trauma, regain their composure, and in the morning, issue in their grogginess hysterical, astonishing denials that the three individuals responsible for machine gunning the staff of the satirical magazine to revenge the “Prophet” had nothing to do with Islam, or that Islam had nothing to do with the attack. They haven’t got that straight yet. One almost expects them to claim that the three Muslims were renegade Quakers who were really upset at Charlie Hebdo over its impiety. They dressed like terrorists and spoke Arabic just to fool everyone.

http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/people-s-cube-commissars-stage-mock-show-trial-in-ferguson-t15701.html
Black_Peoples_Grand_Jury_Hats2.jpg

Soviet_Army_soldier_hat_insignia.jpg
Actually, these comrades in Soviet army hats are not really members of the People’s Cube, nor have they ever been. Instead, this is the most acute case of “life imitating the People’s Cube” we’ve seen so far, especially that it happened almost simultaneously with our very own scheduled Show Trial and Raffle.

A few days ago, on January 5th, in St. Louis, Mo, a group of comrades wearing Russian fur hats with Red Army insignia (complete with red stars and hammer’n’sickles) held a People’s Grand Jury, with live broadcast, in which they unanimously denounced the State Prosecutor for being the imperialist running pig-dog, and, after one hour of selective and one-sided debate found the kriminal kop Darren Wilson guilty on all trumped-up charges.

“Black People’s Grand Jury” indicts Officer Darren Wilson

Black_Peoples_Grand_Jury_Banner.jpg

Obviously, members of the mock show trial are now in need of mock NKVD officers to escort the convicted enemy of the people to the mock Siberian gulag – or, better yet, stage a mock firing squad.

All is well behind the Irony Curtain, comrades! – See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/people-s-cube-commissars-stage-mock-show-trial-in-ferguson-t15701.html#sthash.OLUFLZEe.dpuf

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000645.html

1. Son of the Chief Rabbi of Tunis among those killed
2. Muslim employee saved Jews during supermarket siege
3. Offensive images The New York Times wasn’t afraid to publish
4. Charlie Hebdo and Kosher terror mentor’s wife lives rent free in UK
5. 40% of all violent racist attacks in France last year were against Jews
6. Some Muslims and Christians adopt the JeSuisJuif hashtag
7. “How dare so many Europeans still wonder why Israel needs to exist”
8. Closed for the first time since the Nazis overran Paris
9. BBC to review Mohammed image ‘ban’
10. 24 front covers from around the world
11. “Islamophobia is a myth”
12. Remembering Ilan Halimi

Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/freedom-of-speech-is-only-free-when-it-can-offend?f=must_reads#ixzz3OWB2GewG
Yesterday over a dozen people were killed and nearly the same number of people were wounded as radical Islamists shot people who expressed an offensive opinion about Mohammed. It was savagery. They killed a wounded police officer who was no further threat to them. Mercy would have dictated leaving him on the street. The true nature of these horrific creatures was revealed when they ended his life. All across the globe Islamists rail in violent response whenever anyone has the temerity to publically criticize their faith or its founder. Christians long ago abandoned violence as a solution to disagreement. When will the radicals do so?

Let’s be clear – I’m not a big fan of ethnic jokes, hurtful cartoons against God – regardless whose deity it is, or religious lampooning. But I’m even less a fan of censorship or violence against people with whom I or a group disagree. I’m an educated woman; there are other ways! Recently at a cocktail party one of the guests started making a derogatory comment about Jesus; I quickly, firmly, but politely stopped the woman in her tracks, without having to involve any of my weapons, let alone the handy corkscrew. It can be done. You can stay “stop” or offer a counterpoint without involving bloodshed or the coroner’s office. Note to thin skinned radicals – it’s a cartoon, an opinion, a sound-bite. Offensive, maybe; But get over it!

These are some of the things that Oriana Fallaci wrote after 9/11. So little has changed that she could have written them now, after the Paris attacks, which also confirm how right she was.

~~~~~~~
The enemy is in our home

The canard of “moderate” Islam, the comedy of tolerance, the lie of the integration, the farce of multiculturalism continue. And with that, the attempt to make us believe that the enemy consists of a small minority and that small minority lives in distant countries. Well, the enemy is not a small minority. And he’s in our home. He’s an enemy that at first glance does not look like an enemy. Without a beard, dressed in Western fashion, and according to his accomplices in good or bad faith perfectly-assimilated-into-our-social-system. That is, with a residence permit. With the car. With family. Never mind if the family is often made up of two or three wives, never mind if the wife or wives are constantly beaten up, if he sometimes kills his blue-jeans-wearing daughter, if sometimes his son rapes the 15-year-old Bolognese girl walking in the park with her boyfriend. He is an enemy that we treat as a friend. Who nevertheless hates and despise us with intensity. An enemy whom in the name of humanitarianism and political asylum we welcome in thousands at a time, even though the reception centres are overflowing, bursting, and we no longer know where to put him. An enemy whom, in the name of “necessity” (but what necessity, the necessity to fill our streets with peddlers and drug dealers?), we invite through the Olympus of the Constitution. “Come, dear, come. We need you so much.” An enemy who turns mosques into barracks, training camps, recruitment centres for terrorists, and who blindly obeys the imam. An enemy who, thanks to the free movement required by the Schengen Agreement, roams at will across Eurabia, so that to go from London to Marseille, from Cologne to Milan or vice versa he doesn’t have to produce any documents. He can be a terrorist who moves around to organise or put into effect a massacre, he can carry all the explosives he wants: no one stops him, no one touches him.

Perhaps we should call this a jihad because Pogroms occurred when locals in Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine etc. needed to raise a little Jew hatred and were indulged and participated in by the local police and neighbors….In France this week it was all Islam perpetrated as part of their ideology of Jihad….rsk
The vile anti-Semitic pogrom at a Paris Kosher supermarket on Friday is being dramatically downplayed by a politically correct mainstream media that cannot handle the reality of widespread Jew-hatred among Islamists.

Barely had the slaughter at Charlie Hebdo taken place on Wednesday than the mainstream media nailed the motivation of the attackers. This was a terror attack by Islamists opposed to a satirical outlet that had offended the sensitivities of Muslims by holding Mohammed up to ridicule.

There was more to say, of course, but, in a nutshell, they’d conveyed the right message.

Contrast that with reporting during and immediately after the massacre at a Jewish supermarket on Friday, again by Islamists. The contrast is easy because there has so far been no explanation whatsoever. The truth, of course, is that the Kosher supermarket was attacked solely because it was a kosher supermarket.

Put another way, it was attacked because it was Jewish.

On yesterday’s New York Times op-ed page, former veteran State Department Middle East hand Dennis Ross made a strong case for the world to stop “giving the Palestinians a pass” for actions intended to derail the peace process. In doing so Ross is taking up the cudgels for the position of the Obama administration against that of its European allies on the question of tolerating a Palestinian diplomatic offensive at the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. Both he and the administration are correct that the Palestinian Authority is sabotaging peace by abandoning negotiations and seeking instead to use international pressure to brand Israel as a pariah. But what Ross leaves out of his argument is as interesting as what he says. The proof that his position is correct lies in the history of his own failures and that of the administrations he served as they wrongly appeased the Palestinians and instead pressured Israel.