RUTHFULLY YOURS

In Michel Houellebecq’s dystopian novel, Submission (2015), which takes place in an imaginary France ‎in 2022, when the Muslim Brotherhood has won elections and rules the country in alliance with the Socialists, the non-Jewish protagonist, a professor at the Sorbonne, tells his Jewish student, who is escaping to Israel with her family, that there ‎can be “no Israel for me.” This is one of the most poignant observations in the book.‎

Another is the protagonist’s reflection that the increasing violence, even the gunshots in the streets of Paris as a ‎civil war threatens to explode during the run-up to the elections, has become the ‎new normal: something that everyone is resigned to as an inevitable fact, barely reported in the ‎media and treated as unremarkable by his fellow lecturers. Even after the Muslim Brotherhood wins the ‎elections, and the Sorbonne is turned into an Islamic university, with all that this entails, his colleagues treat ‎this development as nothing out of the ordinary. Houllebecq’s indictment against the silence and ‎complicity of his fellow intellectuals in the face of the Islamist encroachments on French society is ‎scathing. As a matter of course, in the new France, where freedom of speech comes at a prohibitive ‎price, Houllebecq now has to live under 24-hour police protection. Submission, by the way, was published on the day of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks.‎

The resignation and the precarious pretense that everything is normal in the face of rapidly deteriorating ‎circumstances, is a predictable human reaction, testimony to the sometimes practical but lamentable human capacity for adaptation to most circumstances, whatever they may be. ‎Historically, Jews have excelled in this discipline, simply because they had no choice. Just like Houllebecq’s ‎protagonist, they had nowhere else to go. However, whereas there “can be no Israel” for the lost ‎professor, today, unlike the last time Jews were threatened on a large scale in Europe, there is an Israel ‎for the Jews. Uniquely among all the peoples of Europe, the Jews have a welcoming place to go. ‎Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Western European Jews choose to stay put in Europe.‎

The great man-caused disaster of the last century is not global warming. It is socialism.

Consider the utter tragedy playing itself out in Venezuela, a formerly relatively prosperous, resource-rich, Western nation that now faces the economic, political and cultural abyss after embracing the Bernie Sanders-on-steroids policies the Left always promises will bring about justice, fairness and equality.

As one heart-wrenching account details:

In the last two years Venezuela has experienced the kind of implosion that hardly ever occurs in a middle-income country like it outside of war. Mortality rates are skyrocketing; one public service after another is collapsing; triple-digit inflation has left more than 70 percent of the population in poverty; an unmanageable crime wave keeps people locked indoors at night; shoppers have to stand in line for hours to buy food; babies die in large numbers for lack of simple, inexpensive medicines and equipment in hospitals, as do the elderly and those suffering from chronic illnesses.

Venezuela indeed has experienced a war, but not one involving armies. The nation has waged a war on liberty itself.

Even if Britain does vote to leave the European Union, it will still work with the EU, albeit as a separate diplomatic entity rather than having its voice submerged by the dead hand of Brussels bureaucracy.

Britain outside the EU will be just as vigorous in opposing further acts of Russian aggression as it has been as a member of the EU.

NATO, rather than the EU, is the most important organization for keeping Moscow in its place.

For all his claims to the contrary, there can be little doubt that Russian President Vladimir Putin will be taking a keen interest in the outcome of Britain’s historic referendum on its membership of the European Union on Thursday.

The Kremlin’s official line is that Moscow has no interest in whether the British people decide to leave or remain a member of the 28-state economic and political union. And in his first public comment on the vote last weekend. Mr Putin said the decision was “the business of the people of the UK,” even though he could not help having a gratuitous swipe at British Prime Minister David Cameron, accusing him of trying to “blackmail Europe” by calling the vote.

But even though the Kremlin’s official position is that it is observing a strict neutrality on the outcome, the reality is that there is nothing that would please Mr Putin more than a British vote in favour of Brexit.

China now has the world’s fastest supercomputer, faster than anything we’ve got by a factor of five. Forget the South China Sea. That’s rope-a-dope, and we’re the dope that’s getting roped. We lost that one. We’re about to lose the next round, too.

China has built the computer with chips that it designed and manufactured in China, after the United States banned Intel from selling its fastest chips to China.

China not only has the world’s fastest individual supercomputer, but it has more total supercomputing capacity than the United States. And its capacity is growing, and getting even faster; China claims it will add a zero to computing speed by 2020, which would make its top-of-the-line box 50 times faster than the Titan supercomputer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

This isn’t about virtual reality headsets. Supercomputers are a decisive instrument in economics and war. They break codes (or create hard-to-break codes), for example. They simulate nuclear explosions. They design air frames. They model the molecular properties of new materials. China’s economy, to be sure, is far behind America’s in many key areas–but not in chip-making, or computer architecture. Not any more.

China has surface-to-ship missiles (the DF-21 and its successors) that can sink U.S. carriers. It has satellite-killer missiles that can take out our space-based communications. It has high-speed maneuvering missiles. We know about all this. What should worry us is what we don’t know about yet. China’s super-computing capacity opens up a vast number of possibilities for industrial as well as weapons design. It turbocharges the rate of innovation and drastically reduces developing and testing time and costs. This is an advantage America used to take for granted. We controlled exports of fast computer chips, even the ones embedded in game boxes, because we wanted to maintain our edge. And now it’s gone. Not a single politician to my knowledge has mentioned it.

There can be no ifs and buts about it – the EU is a Dictatorship. How come? How dare I say such a thing? Answer: When the Commission headed by Herr Juncker issues a Regulation it has the force of law for all 28 member States immediately. Let me repeat that one word – immediately.

Nobody has the right to question this Regulation – it is incontestable. It simply arrives from the EU and it is Law! There are no discussions in Parliament, no processes, no debate, absolutely nothing. Once you clearly understand this my friends, and my friends also on the Remain side, I say to you “Think again.”

It is true that both the Lords and the Monarchy are an anachronism, in some ways logically indefensible. So we have a Monarch by whom all laws are promulgated by Royal Assent, but whose Assent is assured. The Monarch actually has almost absolute power, which in practice is never used. The House of Commons is the legislature, where laws are proposed by the majority Party and opposed by the Opposition. The Executive is formed by the leader of the majority Party, who becomes Prime Minister, but still has to report weekly to the Monarch. (Not everybody knows this.)

The Lords were originally landed gentry who had a natural stake in the Kingdom, and the Bishops, both of whom were reckoned to be above being bought and above Party politics, – precisely because they were not elected. Alas too many Prime Ministers have sought to fill the Lords with their cronies. Nevertheless, in spite of the abuses of power, the Lords has proved to be a wonderful brake upon the Commons, and a means of publicising issues to the general public and modifying laws.

Mathias Döpfner is one of Europe’s staunchest defenders of Israel who describes himself as a “non-Jewish Zionist” In his words:” “Israel and Europe should have an understanding of absolutely common interests in the defense of democracy and the values of the free Western world. Israel is the bridgehead of democracy in the Middle East. So it is in the interests of Europe to support it and to strengthen it. We share the same cultural roots and we share the same security interests and foreign policy interests. Let’s bring it closer together.” rsk

BERLIN—Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s efforts to silence what his lawyers have called libelous mockery of his person in Germany suffered a blow on Tuesday when a court rebuffed a complaint he had filed against a prominent German media executive.

The higher court of Cologne ruled on appeal that Mathias Döpfner, chairman and chief executive of media group Axel Springer SE, expressed an opinion when defending a comedian’s vitriolic text about the president. This opinion, it said, was protected by freedom of expression.

The decision, which confirmed a judgment in first instance, marked a win for critics of the Turkish president and advocates of press freedom, who had accused Mr. Erdogan of seeking to extend a domestic crackdown on critics to other countries.

“The decision shows that the state of law functions in Germany,” said Frank Überall, chairman of the German Federation of Journalists DJV. “Maybe the Turkish president Erdogan will now concentrate again on a factual discourse rather than try and abuse of the German legal system to implement his crude censor fantasies.”

The decision is the latest episode in an unfolding dispute that originated in a poem that comedian Jan Böhmermann aired on a late-night comedy show at the end of March. The lengthy string of crude abuse aimed at the president was meant as an ironic response to Turkey’s prior criticism of another piece of satire and a self-avowed attempt to test the limits of free speech in Germany.

Mr. Döpfner, whose stables of publications include Germany’s mass-market Bild tabloid and the broadsheet Die Welt, had come out in defense of the comedian when it emerged that he was being sued by Mr. Erdogan for insulting the Turkish president. CONTINUE AT SITE

BRUSSELS—If the U.K. decides in Thursday’s referendum to leave the European Union, it would shake the continent to its political foundations. Even if it stays, the bloc may never be the same.

A decision to leave, which would be a first by a member nation, would deepen the crisis facing a continent already struggling with economic weakness, debt problems, large-scale migration and growing geopolitical instability to its south and east.

At a minimum, politicians and officials say, a British exit would transform the bloc’s balance of power. Negotiations over a new relationship would consume the EU’s energy at a time when European institutions are struggling to respond to the other problems. A U.K. exit also could disrupt financial markets and fire up anti-EU forces in other countries.

Whether or not the U.K. leaves, change is coming. In February, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron struck a deal with the rest of the EU to restrict migrant benefits and detach Britain from the bloc’s push for an “ever closer union.” Mr. Cameron’s effort to claw back power from Brussels, coupled with the referendum at home, is an approach that other European politicians are promising to follow, potentially fragmenting the bloc further.
Known Unknowns of ‘Brexit’

On June 23 the U.K. votes on whether to stay in or leave the European Union. It’s difficult to know exactly what will happen if voters choose leave, but that hasn’t stopped both sides of the debate predicting the future. So, here are three things we definitely don’t know about Brexit. Photo: Getty Images.

The referendum, at a minimum, has delivered a shock to Europe’s political classes, calling into question what some had once regarded as an inevitable march toward a federal EU.

“Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe, do not share our Euro-enthusiasm,” European Council President Donald Tusk observed in a speech in late May. “The specter of a breakup is haunting Europe, and a vision of a federation doesn’t seem to me like the best answer to it.”

Some see the U.K. referendum, no matter the outcome, as an opportunity to move toward a new EU treaty with a two-tier structure—core countries that are more integrated and peripheral counties that aren’t. Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is seeking a return to office in next year’s presidential elections, advocates reinforcing the eurozone with a finance minister and a European monetary fund. At the same time, he wants to maintain a broader EU, at 28 nations, which focuses on a few areas such as research, energy and agriculture. CONTINUE AT SITE

In a lengthy J-TV interview, former London mayor again refuses to apologize for his ‘historical facts,’ which are refuted by leading Holocaust scholars.— The former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, has again refused to apologize for his remarks about Hitler and Zionism, insisting he was “misquoted” after a radio show in the UK in April.

But Livingstone, in an hour-long interview late last week with the Jewish cable channel J-TV, was put on the spot by the interlocutor, historian Dr. Alan Mendoza, who systematically took the Labour politician’s thesis apart, forcing him to admit he had a hazy grasp of facts and that his source, the left-wing journalist Lenni Brenner, had been selective in his interpretation.

In April, Livingstone, a close ally of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and himself a former MP, was suspended from the Labour Party after going on a BBC radio station and declaring that Hitler had supported Zionism. Livingstone was asked on the show to defend the party after a number of Labour members were suspended for social media posts deemed anti-Semitic.

But Livingstone was ultimately suspended himself after declaring, “Let’s remember, when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”

The fall-out from Livingstone’s inflammatory remarks led to extraordinary scenes in Westminster as the Labour MP John Mann, who is the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, challenged Livingstone outside TV studios and called him “a Nazi apologist.”

Ken Livingstone appears before a parliamentary inquiry into anti-Semitism in London on June 14, 2016 (screen capture: YouTube)

Last week Livingstone was called before the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee to give evidence. Insisting that he had been right and was only re-stating “historical fact,” Livingstone claimed that London Jews were crossing streets to tell him he was correct.

‘If I had said something that was untrue and caused offense, I would have apologized, but what I said was true’

“Salah [prayer] is not done by animals. Those who do not do salah are animals.” — Turkish Professor Mustafa Askar, School of Divinity, Ankara University.

Intimidation by Muslim extremists against those who do not follow a strict, Islamist lifestyle does indeed produce “results.” Physical or verbal attacks against those who do not fast during Ramadan are commonplace all across Turkey. If you happen to find yourself there during Ramadan, stay indoors if you would like to eat, drink or smoke.

“If the faith of those who do not do salah is different from that of the professor, murdering them could even bring sawab [reward for Islamic good deeds]. Such are the views that feed the perverse faith and doctrinal background of Muslim terrorists. … Is this professor aware of the fact that with this claim of his, he could cause the murder of so many innocent people?” — Yasin Ceylan, professor of philosophy, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

Many Muslims claim that the Islamic month of Ramadan is not simply an exercise in fasting during the day. It is, they say, a chance for “a spiritual boost’, “mental peace” or ” a moral awakening.

During Ramadan, however, it often seems as if hate speech and intolerance are as rampant as ever, possibly even more – especially with the “Ramadan TV programs” which are popular.

With the advent of Ramadan, Turkey has not opened only the season of fasting; it has also opened the season of “Ramadan Intolerance.

This frequently consists of statements which threaten or dehumanize those who do not fast.

During this season of “Ramadan Intolerance,” many national television channels or social media users in Turkey disgorge hatred against those who do not carry out the strictest Islamic requirements.

Turkish professor Mustafa Askar, at the School of Divinity, Ankara University, said on the program, “The Joy of Ramadan,” aired on state-funded channel, TRT: “Those who do not do Islamic daily prayers are animals.”

Askar proclaimed on June 12, that “no beings other than humans touch the ground with their foreheads (to do sujud, the position of worship in which the forehead, nose, both hands, knees and all toes touch the ground together). Human beings, he said, were created in a “salah [worship] ergonomic” way and that is why, humans do sujud.

“Let me put it straight,” the professor said. “Salah is not done by animals. Those who do not do salah are animals.”

When the so-called student revolution erupted in Paris in May 1968, President Charles de Gaulle was on a state visit in Romania, and Prime Minister Georges Pompidou on a parallel visit in Afghanistan. Both men were asserting France’s “grandeur” abroad and its “world role” as a champion of “national independence” against both “American and Soviet imperialism.”

Within days, they had to shorten their tours and return to Paris unceremoniously to face a chaotic situation at home.

Radical students had turned the Sorbonne University into a “liberated territory” ; there were barricades all over the Latin Quarter, in the very heart of the French capital; strikes were choking the economy to death; red and black flags were being waved on public buildings. So much for “grandeur.”

One cannot help but recall the 1968 precedent now, as France just convened an international conference in Paris to “restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.” Twenty-nine countries and international organizations attended the conference’s grand opening on June 3. However, very few of them did so at a significant level. Secretary of State John Kerry obliged. So did UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. That was it.

One reason why the conference’s opening failed to attract as much attention as the French sought is simply that France is — again — in a mess.

President Hollande’s popularity is down to 11%. Prime Minister Manuel Valls fares almost as miserably at 14%.

Although a state of emergency has been declared since the jihadist massacres in Paris last November, street riots are still rampant and demonstrations ubiquitous.

The socialist cabinet was unable to pass new labor legislation in a socialist-dominated parliament, and had to resort to Article 49-3: a constitutional provision similar to what is known in America as an executive order.