Displaying posts published in

January 2024

Rule of thuggery prevails in Denmark By Raymond Ibrahim

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/01/rule_of_thuggery_prevails_in_denmark.html

Denmark recently capitulated, forfeiting its hard-fought freedoms to those who hate it. According to a recent report,

Denmark’s parliament has passed a bill that makes it illegal to burn copies of the Quran in public places… The bill, which prohibits “inappropriate treatment of writings with significant religious importance for a recognized religious community,” was passed with 94 votes in favor and 77 opposed… In practical terms, it will be forbidden to burn, tear or otherwise defile holy texts publicly or in videos intended to be disseminated widely. Those who break the law risk a fine or up to two years in prison… The purpose of the law is to counter “the systematic mockery” that, among other things, has contributed to intensifying the threat of [Islamic] terrorism in Denmark, the Ministry of Justice said.

There is much to say here.

First, it is interesting to note that the new bill does not single out Islam or the Koran by name, but rather seeks to protect from desecration “writings with significant religious importance for a recognized religious community.” By employing such generic wording that applies to and presumably protects every religious text and community — though everyone knows the law exists exclusively to protect the Muhammadan creed — the Danes appear to have copied a play from the Islamic gamebook.

As it happens, the blasphemy laws of many Muslim nations do not officially protect Islam alone but extend to other religions. (Egypt, for example, criminalizes the mockery of “heavenly” religions — Islam, Christianity, and Judaism — though the law is virtually exclusively used to protect Islam.) Muslim nations — and now Denmark — pretend to protect all religions in order to appear neutral, objective, not siding with this or that faith. Muslim nations also do it for their image: better to appear interested in protecting the sanctity of all religions rather than appear as rabid fanatics who cannot tolerate criticism.

The ‘Deep State’ and the 2024 US Presidential Election: Down to the Crossroads Aware of the Deep State, will voters finally condemn it as fundamentally un-American? Or will they disregard, or worse, embrace it—and thereby affirmatively consent to their own subjugation? By Nicholas Kass

https://amgreatness.com/2024/01/30/the-deep-state-and-the-2024-us-presidential-election-down-to-the-crossroads/

Since 2016, Americans have become increasingly familiar with the idea of the Deep State and its opposition to former President Donald Trump, whose victories in the Republican primaries and the presidential election that year served as a singular, if circumscribed, rebuke to the bipartisan Washington political Establishment.

Today, as voters prepare for elections in this fourth year of President Joe Biden’s tenure with Trump again as the likely GOP candidate, they see even more clearly the difference between the way the U.S. administrative state actually runs in contrast to the formal American constitutional system. This subterfuge against the “rules-based order,” the very mantra and creedal testament the Establishment professes to justify its preeminence, is a defining characteristic of Deep States the world over.

This brings us to what is shaping up to be the overriding issue for 2024: aware of the Deep State, will voters finally condemn it as fundamentally un-American? Or will they disregard, or worse, embrace it—and thereby affirmatively consent to their own subjugation? The country is at a crossroads.

Sustaining the Operational Tempo…

Public concern in America about what is now understood to be the Deep State predates the Trump era and, in fact, was present on both the political left and right during the unipolar moment of US global hegemony. These concerns became more acute with the concomitant expansion of the US security state under Republican and Democratic presidents following 9/11 and into the first decades of the 21st century. Even before then, almost exactly 63 years ago, in his farewell address to the nation, President Dwight D. Eisenhower—a Republican who was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II—warned Americans to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence” by what he called the immense “military-industrial complex,” pointing to the potential of the Defense bureaucracy working with what today can justifiably be called oligarchic corporate interests to undermine liberty and corrupt the democratic process.

Ethnic Cleansing and Crimes Against Humanity Perpetrated against helpless black Africans in the Sudan by well-armed Arabs. by Hugh Fitzgerald

https://www.frontpagemag.com/ethnic-cleansing-and-crimes-against-humanity/

Not in Gaza, where there has been no ethnic cleansing and no crimes against humanity, though there were war crimes committed by Hamas on October 7 in the kibbutzim and at the Re’im Music Festival. Ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity have been committed, and are still being committed, in the Sudan, carried out on helpless black Africans by well-armed Arabs. Tens of thousands have been killed, and 7.5 million people have fled their homes. Half the population of 49 million now face famine. Half a million of these Africans have fled into Chad to escape the murderous Arab militias. More on this ethnic cleansing, and these crimes against humanity, that receive almost no attention in the world media, fixated as it is on Gaza, can be found here: “Ethnic killings in one Sudan city left up to 15,000 dead – UN report,” Reuters, January 20, 2024:

The war has left nearly half of Sudan’s 49 million people needing aid, while more than 7.5 million people have fled their homes – making Sudan the biggest displacement crisis globally.

Between 10,000 and 15,000 people were killed in one city in Sudan’s West Darfur region last year in ethnic violence by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and allied Arab militia, according to a United Nations report seen by Reuters on Friday [Jan. 19].

Within just a few days, in just one city, as many civilians were murdered in the Sudan as have died during more than three months of war in Gaza, where the IDF has estimated that of the 25,000 Gazans Hamas has so far declared dead, at least 10,000 were combatants, leaving 15,000 civilian deaths in Gaza, which is the upper estimate of the number of civilians killed in the Sudan.

In the report to the UN Security Council, independent UN sanctions monitors attributed the toll in El Geneina [Sudan] to intelligence sources and contrasted it with the UN estimate that about 12,000 people have been killed across Sudan since war erupted on April 15, 2023, between the Sudanese army and the RSF.

The monitors also described as “credible” accusations that the United Arab Emirates had provided military support to the RSF “several times per week” via Amdjarass in northern Chad. A top Sudanese general accused the UAE in November of backing the RSF war effort.

In a letter to the monitors, the UAE said 122 flights had delivered humanitarian aid to Amdjarass to help Sudanese fleeing the war. On Saturday, a UAE official told Reuters that it extended an invitation to the UN monitors to visit a field hospital in Amdjarass “to learn firsthand about the humanitarian efforts undertaken by the UAE to help alleviate the suffering caused by the current conflict.”

Silencing a Piano Man In London, a group of Chinese Communists test their power to crush freedom. by Bruce Bawer

https://www.frontpagemag.com/silencing-a-piano-man/

In London these days, if you’re lucky enough not to be hounded on the street by mobs of virulent pro-Hamas protesters, you just might find yourself assaulted by a gaggle of arrogant Chinese Communists. At least, that is, if you make your living by playing boogie-woogie on public pianos.

That’s what happened the other day to British piano man Brendan Kavanagh, whose YouTube channel has 2.4 million subscribers. Until this dustup occurred, I was unfamiliar with him. He comes off as a totally easygoing type, a middle-aged bloke who enjoys his music, loves sharing it online, and doesn’t take himself too seriously. In brief, a free spirit.

Alas, there are people moving among us in the Western world who, far from being free spirits, are agents of the planet’s largest terror regime. The other day Kavanagh was livestreaming while tickling the ivories at St. Pancras Station in London – on a Yamaha upright donated to the station, as it happens, by Elton John – when a half-dozen or so of them approached him. They were all wearing identical red scarves and carrying small Chinese flags.

At first it appeared as if one of them wanted to play the piano. But no: she said something in broken English about a “disclosure form” and about recording for Chinese TV. Then one of her male comrades told Kavanagh to turn off his camera, insisting that it was the group’s “right” not to have their images recorded. Kavanagh replied, firmly but pleasantly, that “we’re in a free country…..We’re not in Communist China.” To which the young man shot back: “Sorry, this is racist now!” And when Kavanagh’s hand grazed against one young woman’s flag, the Chinese guy exploded: “Don’t touch her!”

Suddenly he’d become a totalitarian commissar, giving orders and expecting to be obeyed. Kavanagh, to his credit, refused to back down, and even dared to say: “Are you in the Communist Party?…You’ve got a Communist flag in your hand.” In reply to which the commissar accused him of “discriminating a different country,” told him to “educate yourself,” and again hurled the word “racist.”

Summoned by the Chinese group, two cops turned up. One of them, a middle-aged woman named Kerry, told Kavanagh to turn off his camera. He refused, as was his right.

A Hundred Days after Gaza’s October 7 (Part 3 of 4) Culpable Ignorance and the Devil’s Spreadsheet by Gwythian Prins

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20357/israel-gaza-culpable-ignorance

Sir William Shawcross’s much delayed and now recent report on “Prevent” – the British Government anti-radicalisation programme – which has documented the failure of efforts at integration and the degree of risk residing within Muslim extremism has secured this disturbing knowledge its place on the public record.

In a climate of Israelophobia, where moral compasses go haywire, Hamas is not being held to account. Predictably, the BBC has presented international law as superior to national law and the International Court of Justice as a higher court than any national court. Neither is true. Under the guise of “human interest”, the BBC repeatedly broadcasts prurient details of injuries to individual children in Gaza. Why? It is designed to shock and anger the listener and to demonize Israel; and it leaves those implications unspoken, hence deniable.

Predictably, the BBC has presented international law as superior to national law and the International Court of Justice as a higher court than any national court. Neither is true. The former Director of BBC Television asks, “When do individual errors add up to something more? When do ‘mistakes’ become a clear pattern of institutional bias? These are questions the BBC must answer when it comes to its reporting of Israel’s conflict with the terrorist group Hamas.” He then lists nine other cases of gross error since 7/10 where the bias has been always the same, namely anti-Israel. “…Is the BBC just unlucky that this keeps happening? The answer is no.”

Hamas has nowhere to hide under Geneva 4. Its crimes are war crimes of the highest order. The ICJ’s interim ruling is vexatious and, while unable to make an objective finding, tarnishes that Court by implying that Israel might in the future commit “genocide” when there is neither evidence of intention nor a community which meets the criteria to be victims of genocide. The same day as its ruling, evidence arrived that UNRWA on which in part it had relied had itself now been discredited by evidence of its operatives’ involvement in 7/10. This is the latest form of Holocaust denial.

It is a matter of moral and legal judgment about how a country with high moral standards wages war against a terrorist enemy that has none. The framework for such an assessment has not been satisfactorily spelled out.

Israel’s entire ground force is part of an interactive all-arms cyber/air/sea/land concept of operations optimised for precision targeting to minimise collateral casualties, maximise the extinction of Hamas terrorists and ensure the effectiveness of its own force protection.

Hamas, conversely, has only a homicidal interest in its own Gaza civilian residents. Bluntly, for its purposes, the more that are killed the better because their deaths can then be blamed on the IDF and added to the undifferentiated butcher’s bill in which Western media take figures issued by Hamas uncritically as being all civilian. Hamas repeatedly obstructed Gazans trying to evacuate south of Wadi Gaza, blocking the route — even shooting them — when, before the first phase of ground operations began, the IDF gave civilians notice to move.

The devil’s spreadsheet therefore brings the ethical terms of engagement squarely front and centre. Israel did not bring war on 7th October. It has Just Cause, is fighting by just means, and has clear precedent.

So the relevant ethical compass is all too clear. It is Hamas and by extension its supporters wherever they are – on the world’s streets, even in the BBC it seems – who carry all moral blame for the fate of Gaza and its people.

In the modern trope of woke “intersectionality”, as victims of purported “white, Jewish colonialism”, Arabs are licensed to do freely any depraved act; and by definition Jews can never be victims.

[F]ar from being an agent of indiscriminate warfare, the IDF is probably the most successfully discriminate modern army. Has the comparison with other modern armies been heard or discussed in BBC analyses? The genocide case was just an attempt to smear with loose language… and has no relevance to Israeli conduct, which will not stop attempts to claim that it has.

Mark Steyn Accuses Michael Mann of Lying about Winning Nobel Prize in Heated Courtroom Exchange By Ryan Mills

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/mark-steyn-accuses-michael-mann-of-lying-about-winning-nobel-prize-in-heated-courtroom-exchange/

During cross examination in his defamation trial on Monday, conservative pundit Mark Steyn hammered climate scientist Michael Mann on the charge that he had engaged in academic misconduct by falsely claiming to have been a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

And Steyn suggested that the Mann was not truly harmed by controversial comments he and a fellow defendant made in blog posts at the center of the nearly 12-year-old legal case.

In his 2012 legal filing against Steyn and Rand Simberg, a scholar who was formerly with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Mann claimed to have been a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, a claim that Steyn said was “fake.” Instead, Mann was one of thousands of people who received a certificate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, for contributing to its 2007 award, which it received along with former vice president Al Gore.

Taking aim at Mann’s credibility, Steyn suggested that Mann used his “fake status” as a Nobel prize winner to claim in his lawsuit that Steyn’s and Simberg’s criticism of his work was defamatory. Penn State University, Mann’s former employer, also pointed at the claim as part of an investigation in 2010 clearing him of research misconduct.

Proportionality . . . Again Andrew McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/proportionality-again/

You could set your watch by it. Whenever there is an atrocious attack on the United States or Israel, if transnational progressives are not subjecting us to the “escalation” drivel, they are subjecting us to the “proportionality” drivel.

For about the millionth time, the law-of-war concept of proportionality does not hold that a response to an attack has to be on the same scale as the attack itself. Several Biden supporters are making that case regarding Iran’s killing and wounding of our troops in Jordan (otherwise, you see, there could be . . . escalation). Think how absurd that is: A rabid enemy aggressor gets both to attack you first and to dictate the scope of your response.

That, of course, is not how proportionality works.

The driving question in a proportionality calculation is: What is the military objective? If that objective is legitimate (which, under the United States Constitution, we get to decide for ourselves), then the use of force must be reasonably proportionate to what is required to achieve the objective. If the objective is to end or drastically diminish the aggression of Iran and its proxy forces, then a proportionate use of force would be whatever is necessary to break the enemy’s will to continue (and even escalate) that aggression.

In April 1988, after Iran mined the Persian Gulf to paralyze commerce and security traffic, one of these mines detonated and nearly sank the USS Samuel B. Roberts, a guided-missile frigate, as it was escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers. President Reagan responded with what became known as Operation Praying Mantis, combined surface-ship and air attacks that destroyed much of Iran’s navy. As described by retired U.S. Navy captain William Luti in a Christmas Day Wall Street Journal op-ed, the operation remains a case study in effective deterrence.

That operation was textbook proportionality.

Team Biden’s Lose-Lose Approach to the Border

https://amac.us/newsline/national-security/team-bidens-lose-lose-approach-to-the-border/

Give the Biden administration credit: If there is one skill they have demonstrated time and again, it is an aptitude for identifying the strategic low ground in political confrontations, and then positioning themselves so that they consistently fight their battles from that ground. That has once again proven to be the case in their recent confrontation with Texas over the ongoing historic border disaster.

Democrats, and their allies in the media, will be quick to assert that the Biden administration has the law and Constitution on its side, having secured a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court Decision allowing the federal government to remove border barriers constructed by Texas. This is technically true, but the political value of the Court’s ruling is dubious.

While Joe Biden would like to be Abraham Lincoln or even Andrew Jackson in a new sectional crisis, his moral and political position is weaker, largely as a result of his own actions.

Leaving aside how both Lincoln and Jackson have been cancelled on the left, it’s worth noting that Joe Biden and the Democrats have gone out of their way for years to suggest that the Supreme Court as an institution is not and should not be the final say on constitutional questions. They have also argued that Supreme Court decisions are purely political.

It will be difficult now for Democrats to generate a crusade in defense of a Court they themselves have disparaged, especially when the deciding vote in the Biden administration’s favor in this case was cast by Amy Comey Barrett, who Democrats insist was illegitimately appointed. Exclude her and the balance is 4-4, with Texas’ position sustained.

In short, the Biden administration’s efforts to justify itself on the basis of defending the rights of the Supreme Court place it at odds with the rest of its messaging, messaging it is likely to resume later this year if the Court overturns Chevron deference or issues any number of other rulings liberals are sure to be outraged about.

Similarly, it is far from clear that Democrats want to go to war, figuratively, on the principle of federal supremacy and power. Prior to 2016, many Democrats allowed themselves to believe that they would always control the levers of federal power, and it is clear that for at least some Democrats the Trump presidency did not disabuse them of the notion.

The UN’s Terrorism Teachers American taxpayers have been subsidizing educators who call for the murder of Jews. Suspending these funds isn’t enough. UNRWA must be abolished for good. Hillel Neuer

https://www.thefp.com/p/the-uns-terrorist-teachers-israel-unrwa?utm_campaign=email-post&r=8t06w&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Many who watched the October 7 massacre likely wondered how a man’s mind can become so warped that he not only commits heinous acts of murder, rape, and mutilation, but proudly films this carnage for the world to see.

It is a complicated question. But one of the primary answers is found in the schools that mold the minds of young people in their formative years. In Gaza, the organization that does much of the molding is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, or UNRWA. That organization pays the salaries of teachers who call for the murder of Jews. 

On Friday, UNRWA said it had fired some employees accused of participating in Hamas’s October 7 invasion of Israel. Over the weekend, in an unprecedented rebuke of the agency, more than a dozen of its donor states, including the U.S., Germany, France, Japan, Canada, and the Netherlands, announced their suspension of funds to UNRWA. The latest revelations follow numerous other reported cases of UNRWA’s entanglement with Hamas terrorism. 

This agency was chartered after the 1948 war that established the state of Israel. Since 1950, UNRWA has provided the bulk of social services at Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza, including the crucial task of teaching Palestinian children and adolescents. 

But the notion that it is primarily an agency for the relief of refugees is a front. UNRWA’s main task is political. Palestinians who work for UNRWA call it “the main political witness to our cause.”

UNRWA exists to perpetuate Palestinians as refugees. Unlike the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which since World War II has been responsible for the welfare of all refugees in the world, and has worked toward their resettlement and relocation, UNRWA deals only with the Arabs from Palestine and has a completely different objective.

Millions of Palestinians who attend UNRWA schools in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and Gaza are taught that the war of 1948 is not over, and that they have a “right of return”—meaning, to dismantle and take over Israel. 

The UN betrays its mission by signaling to the Palestinians that the war is not over, and to keep fighting. 

UN Secretary General António Guterres said he was “horrified” to discover that UNRWA employees participated in the invasion and massacre of October 7. But in reality, their actions merely translated UNRWA’s core message into action.

How to Stop DEI Bari Weiss hosts a debate: Christopher Rufo vs. Yascha Mounk.

This weekend, Bari Weiss hosted a debate between me and Johns Hopkins professor Yascha Mounk on “the right way to fight illiberalism.” There were points of agreement, but ultimately, the debate diverged as we considered the practical necessities for winding down repressive DEI bureaucracies. My approach was more aggressive; Mounk’s was more cerebral. The consensus in Bari Weiss’ comments section was that I had the upper hand, but you can listen and make your own determination.

The following are highlights selected by The Free Press:

On how to describe DEI’s capture of higher education:

Bari Weiss: Some people call it wokeness, which sort of automatically brands you as being on the right. Other people call it critical theory or identity politics or postmodern neo-Marxism. There’s a lot of disagreement about how we actually describe this thing that all of us are witnessing. So I want to start there. What is it that we’re actually talking about?

Christopher Rufo: I think it’s an ideological syndrome. So it’s a cluster of traits, ideas, concepts, narratives, and bureaucratic arrangements that have really revolutionized American society over the past 50 years. I trace the immediate origins back to the year 1968, and the argument that I make in my book, America’s Cultural Revolution, is that all of the ideas from the radical left of that era—the late 1960s, early 1970s—have infiltrated universities and then started to move laterally through bureaucracies in the state sector, in K–12 education, in HR departments, and even the Fortune 100 companies. And what you see over the course of this process is some very multisyllabic, complex ideological concepts from the originators of these ideas in that period. And now they’ve filtered out through bureaucratic language, through euphemisms, to become what we now know as DEI. That’s the ultimate bureaucratic expression of these ideologies.

You can call it—any of those labels that you just suggested, I think, are correct in general, at least facets of this ideology. But at this point, it’s not just an idea. It’s actually an administrative, cultural, and bureaucratic power that has manifested itself and entrenched itself as a new, let’s say, hegemonic cultural force in American life. 

Yascha Mounk: I think the best way to boil down the ideas of this ideology is in three propositions. Number one, that identity categories like race, gender, and sexual orientation are the key prism for understanding society. But to understand how we talk to each other today, or to understand who won the last election, or to understand how political revolutions happen, you have to look at things like race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Number two, that universalist values and neutral rules, like those enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, are just meant to pull the wool over people’s eyes, that they actually were always designed to perpetuate forms of racist and sexist discrimination, that as Derrick Bell, the founder of critical race theory, claimed, America in the year 2000 remained as racist as it had been in 1950 and 1850.