RUTHFULLY YOURS

The world’s most lethal evil-doers are the NGOs that fly under a false flag, claiming to be champions of human rights. Their potency comes from the fact that unlike other of the world’s worst actors—think Kim Jung Un—they are not feared and despised but admired and treated as moral arbiters. A billion dollar a year industry, these NGOs reinforce their moral with financial muscle. Gerald Steinberg, founder and director of NGO Monitor, has been alone in following these outfits for the last fifteen years. He observes that human rights NGOs show “that soft power can sometimes be more dangerous than hard power.”

And while Israel is their most obvious target, they have bigger game in their sights—the transformation of Western societies and culture through mass immigration.

Human rights NGOs bear a major responsibility for the demonizing of Israel in the West. In Catch the Jew Tuvia Tenenbom, masquerading as Tobi the German, focuses on the hundreds of so-called human rights NGOs that infest Israel and the Palestinian-controlled territories in search of Israeli misdeeds—and fabricate them (sometimes stage them) as they come up short. Many of these NGOs are basically front groups for terrorists and assorted destroy-Israel groups. In 1917 Steinberg finally was able to persuade the Danish government to stop funding the Human Rights International Humanitarian Law Secretariat, an NGO framework established in 2013 at Bir Zeit University in Ramallah with an annual budget of millions of euros paid for by the governments of Sweden, Holland, Denmark and Switzerland. In an interview with journalist Ruthie Blum, Steinberg says that his research has shown that of the 24 core NGOs funded by the Secretariat, six had ties to the Marxist-Leninist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (on the EU’s official list of terrorist organizations) and 15 were involved in world-wide campaigns to destroy Israel by economic means.

We live in an age of ideological self-awareness, a world of identity politics and human rights activism, where those among us with any common characteristic or condition, or particular cause or opinion, can coalesce into active pressure groups each demanding recognition of its perceived “cotton wool” rights.

It is often claimed that the law is now soft on crime and weak on social and civil wrongdoing. By comparison with what it was like during the life and times of nineteenth-century Australia, our present-day laws are indeed very soft.

Stealing a sheep in the 1820s invited the death penalty.[1] Convicts were flogged for being rude to an official;[2] and when George Howe was given permission to publish Australia’s first newspaper, the Sydney Gazette in 1803, the country was not ready for a free press—it had to be “passed by the governor’s inspector”.[3]

All of that changed with the moving times and the development of an enlightened democratic system of government. Steal sheep now and you might get away with a community service order;[4] be rude to whoever you like and so what; while the media can report and criticise anyone or anything it believes to be deserving of it.[5]

Well, that is unless you offend, insult or humiliate someone who claims their sensibilities and feelings have been hurt. I’m referring, of course, to the long-running debate over section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975[6] in respect of which several trivial complaints with a racial connotation, as dealt with by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), have given rise to public controversy and concern.

From the historical archives, a reminder of the thin line between barbarity and civilisation, and that civilisation cannot be taken for granted. (The image at left is of still-breathing victims of the Kiev pogrom of 1919; the pogrom described below seemingly occurred in 1885, and the author briefly mentions one that took place in 1905.)

This article was printed in The Australian Worker, 16 August 1933; it was entitled ‘What a Jewish Pogrom Means’.

For centuries the Jews have been persecuted. But have you ever realised the terror of a pogrom? This description of anti-Jewish riots by David Katharas refers to pre-war Russia, but it might easily be Germany to-day.

This story may help Christians to realise the. horror with which world Jewry has heard of the outbreak of anti-Semitism in Germany, and the depth of feeling behind the protests of our people against the Nazi attacks on the Jews.

I am a trader in the City of London, but Russia is the country of my birth.

I am one of many thousands of Jews in this country and America who have lived through the terror of persecution in Eastern Europe, and who know what anti-Semitism can mean at the hands of the more brutal of the European peoples.

My mind goes back to a spring evening in the town of Kiev in South Russia [Ukraine].

There are five of us huddled in a corner of a back room — my parents, my two young sisters and myself. We children are clutching my father’s arms, too terrified to speak or even to weep.

A Swedish court ruled against the parental rights of Alicia, a Swedish citizen, and handed over her children (also Swedish citizens) to a foreigner who is known to have raped their mother, in the context of an Islamic sharia “marriage,” when she herself was a child.

Sometimes, when one points out these rules, people will respond: “Well, the Bible says such-and-such.” The point is not that these things are written in Islamic scripture, but that people still live by them.

Swedish officials have not made any “mistakes” in Alicia’s case. Every single action on their part has been rooted in a philosophy that they thoroughly understand and in which they deeply believe. They are, as they love to proclaim, proud feminists, whose ardent belief in sisterhood ends where brutal Islamic patriarchy, gender oppression, and primitive “honor culture” begin. That is feminism, Swedish style.

In practice, as it happens, this compulsion to respect the different priorities of other cultures is most urgent when the culture in question is the one in which female inequality is most thoroughly enshrined and enforced.

“Sweden has the first feminist government in the world,” brags the Swedish government on its official website. Meaning what, exactly?

“This means that gender equality is central to the Government’s priorities… a gender equality perspective is brought into policy-making on a broad front… The Government’s most important tool for implementing feminist policy is gender mainstreaming, of which gender-responsive budgeting is an important component.”

“The result of 25 years of multiculturalism has not been multicultural communities. It has been mono-cultural communities… Islamic communities are segregated.” – Ed Husain, former Muslim extremist.

This approach, giving social-services, is based on the belief — oft-refuted — that Muslim extremists (both Muslims-by-birth and converts) have suffered from deprivation. It also greatly rests on the naïve assumption that rewarding them with benefits — for which genuinely deprived citizens generally need to wait in line — will turn them into grateful patriots, prepared to stand for the national anthem and hold hands with Christians and Jews.

The British government has shown itself incapable of enforcing its own laws when it comes to its Muslim citizens or new immigrants. Rather than stand up to our enemies, both external and internal, are we so afraid of being called “Islamophobes” that we will sacrifice even our own cultural, political, and religious strengths and aspirations?

For many complex reasons, Europe is in an advanced state of decline. In recent years, several important studies of this condition have appeared, advancing a variety of reasons for it: Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, James Kirchik’s The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, as well as Christopher Caldwell’s ground-breaking 2010 study, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West. Soeren Kern at Gatestone Institute has also been detailing the steady impact of immigration from Muslim regions on countries such as Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

It is clear that something serious is happening on the continent in which I live.

The threat is not restricted to Europe, but has a global dimension. Michael J. Abramowitz, President of Freedom House, writes in his introduction to the organization’s 2018 report:

A quarter-century ago, at the end of the Cold War, it appeared that totalitarianism had at last been vanquished and liberal democracy had won the great ideological battle of the 20th century.

Today, it is democracy that finds itself battered and weakened. For the 12th consecutive year, according to Freedom in the World, countries that suffered democratic setbacks outnumbered those that registered gains. States that a decade ago seemed like promising success stories—Turkey and Hungary, for example—are sliding into authoritarian rule.

DUNCE IS A GENDER NEUTRAL WORD! RSK

Just because a word contains M-A-N, does that automatically mean it refers to a specific gender? If you’re championing the cause of “non-sexist” language, you bet it does.

It’s called “gendered” language and to rational, reasonable people, the argument against it is silly. “All men are created equal” does not refer to one gender. “Mankind” “humanity,””freshman,” “man-made” — these are words that are inclusive of the (excuse me) human race, male and female. For hundreds of years, their meaning has been understood completely by all English speaking people.

But it doesn’t matter that these words do not refer specifically to the male gender. They sound like they do, ergo, they have to go.

This disease has even infected the upper echelons of power in the western world. Here’s Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau correcting a questioner who dared use the term “mankind.” CONTINUE AT SITE

After Israel’s ambassador to Poland criticized that nation’s bill to outlaw words that suggest Polish complicity in the Holocaust, a spokesperson for Poland’s ruling party retweeted the comment that the ambassador’s action “makes it difficult for me to look at Jews with kindness and sympathy.”

The bill, which has passed Poland’s parliament and which President Andrzej Duda has until Feb. 21 to decide whether to sign, would set prison terms of up to three years for using phrases like “Polish death camps” and suggesting “publicly and against the facts” that Poland or its government was complicit in Nazi Germany’s slaughter of more than 3 million Jewish Poles.

To be sure, Poland deserves a fair shake about the World War II murder of Jews within its borders, and other nations have long sought to allay its concerns. German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said just the other day that the term “Polish death camps” was wrong, Israel says it doesn’t oppose Poland’s efforts to discourage its use, and President Barack Obama apologized for using the term in 2012.

Rather than correct history, however, this bill is designed to curtail efforts to speak openly about the past. And it’s driven far less by the government’s concerns for accuracy than by its desire to nourish its right-wing, nationalistic base at the expense of Jews and other targeted minorities.

First, a few facts about Poland’s experience during the war: For one thing, it was treated savagely by both Germany and the Soviet Union, which conspired to carve it up. For another, and unlike its neighbors, it was never ruled by a pro-German collaborationist government in Warsaw. For still another, the death camps within its borders were built by the Nazis, not by Poles.

A warning for Taiwan about unification with China….rsk
Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal overturned prison sentences Tuesday for three students who led prodemocracy protests in 2014. But the defendants didn’t celebrate, because the justices also upheld tougher sentencing guidelines for future cases, and the government is barring other democracy advocates from taking part in elections.

Two years ago a magistrate sentenced Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow to community service and suspended jail terms for leading the civil-disobedience campaign that occupied downtown streets for 75 days. Most of the population supported their request that Beijing honor its promise of universal-suffrage elections for the city’s chief executive. But Beijing refused, and prosecutors then took the rare step of asking for tougher punishment in the Court of Appeal, which imposed jail terms of six to eight months.

The government’s motivation was clear: Convicts sentenced to three months or longer are banned from running for public office for five years. If the activists won seats in the city’s legislature, they could use that platform to demand Beijing honor its promises of autonomy and democracy. Mr. Law was elected to the legislature in 2016. But the Beijing-backed government created new rules that retroactively disqualified him and five others.

By-elections for four of those seats will be held on March 11, and another popular protest leader, Agnes Chow, was expected to replace Mr. Law. An election official disqualified her on grounds that she would not uphold the city’s constitution, the Basic Law, that says Hong Kong is part of China.