RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://dianawest.substack.com/subscribe?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=email-subscribe&r=

Mark Steyn’s explanation for why he no longer takes note of the milestones of Jihad against the West marks them perfectly as the nullities they became. His reason: “Because we dishonoured the dead: we were summoned to a great societal challenge and could not muster the will to rise to it.”

Yes, the powers arrayed against Graeco-Roman-Judeo-Christian civilization were already too strong, and that was quite clear from the moment George W. Bush declared Islam was peace and apologized for saying the word “crusade.” Thus began that era of dueling adjectives and suffixes — “Islamofascism,” “Islamism,” and, of course, “violent extremism,” and the like, all invented to protect “Islam” from the light of scrutiny and — for lovers of life and liberty — revilement in public debate, international affairs, academia. That’s all over, which should strike us with terror anew. now, nearly a quarter-century after 9/11, and twenty years after 7/7. Islam is not even a topic of debate, however truncated and one-sided. I tried to explain the ramifications of this silence — perfect dhimmitude — in an interview yesterday with Coffee and a Mike, under the assumption that most viewers would have no understanding of what I was talking about, the Islamic slate having been wiped clean in perfect accord with Islamic blasphemy laws prohibiting criticism of Islam.

And so the cat chases its tail.

From July 10, 2005: “Burnt Offerings on the Altar of Multiculturalism”:

Only one faith on Earth may be more messianic than Islam: multiculturalism. Without it — without its fanatics who believe all civilizations are the same — the engine that projects Islam into the unprotected heart of Western civilization would stall and fail.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/azealia-banks-gives-the-world-a-piece-of-her-mind/

Azealia Banks is a rapper who doesn’t like being pressured by the anti-Israel bully-boys running music festivals in Great Britain to denounce Israel and join the chorus of those who want to destroy it. She’s just given the world a piece of her mind. It’s worth reading, here: “Rapper pulls out of music festivals alleging they wanted her to make ‘free Palestine’ statements onstage,” by Gabriel Hays, Fox News, June 28, 2025:

Musician Azealia Banks said on Wednesday she canceled her performances at two upcoming U.K. festivals because they asked her to make anti-Israel statements on stage.

The rapper and singer took to X earlier this week to announce that she was pulling out of the Maiden Voyage Festival in London, as well as the Boomtown Festival in Hampshire. She alleged that event promoters said she needed to push pro-Palestinian slogans during her performances.

“So guys, I am cancelling Boomtown and Maiden Voyage, the promoters have been stressing me out for weeks trying to force me to say free Palestine and threatening to cut me from the bill because I won’t say free Palestine and I’m not dealing with the threats and I’m not putting on a f—— hijab,” she wrote.

The “Luxury” singer’s lengthy post continued. She alleged that both events threatened to cut her acts if she didn’t comply with the requests, and noted that she went ahead and pulled out first because she didn’t agree with the demands.

“They’re both basically trying to extort me – by insinuating that I need to say I support Palestine or they will drop me from the gig BUT I would much rather drop them and not associate with anything that has cheap group think b——- attached to it.”

Still, Banks wasn’t finished.

She continued, “If they want to allow some no-name DJs to bully them into desecrating the nature of this music ecosystem and make ME the issue – whilst there being absolutely no ethical consumption under capitalism. Then that’s fine.”

https://www.city-journal.org/article/zohran-mamdani-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-identity-political-gain

Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—two of America’s most prominent socialist politicians—have committed identity theft. No, they did not pilfer a Social Security number or swipe the digits of someone else’s credit card. They have done something more subtle: stealing the image of the oppressed for personal and political gain.

It’s an old trick. Just as Elizabeth Warren claimed Native American heritage as she ascended the ranks of academia, Mamdani and Ocasio-Cortez adopted the identities of the poor and downtrodden as they ascended the ranks of politics. Both built their political personas on a small kernel of truth: Mamdani claimed on his college application to be black because he was born in Uganda, despite being the son of two famous, affluent, and educated Indians; Ocasio-Cortez claimed to be a “Bronx girl” because she lived in the borough until age five, when she moved to a tony corner of Westchester County. Both have structured their identities around grand narratives of oppressor and oppressed, which they hope to convert into power and prestige.

The truth is that both Mamdani and Ocasio-Cortez belong to groups—Indians and Latinos, respectively—that do not fit neatly into America’s deepest historical binary, that between white and black, colonist and slave. Though both could doubtlessly point toward some personal slight or past injustice against their ethnic group, neither Mamdani nor Ocasio-Cortez can lay a real claim to historical oppression. Indian Americans are among the most educated and affluent groups in America, and the vast majority of Latinos arrived in the United States after desegregation and the Civil Rights Act. The very fact that millions of people uprooted themselves from India and Latin America to try their luck in this country indicates that they considered America a land of opportunity, rather than injustice.

For Mamdani and Ocasio-Cortez, however, the myth of post-Civil Rights Act discrimination must be maintained at all costs. Both use their privilege—Mamdani, graduate of Bowdoin and son of a professor; Ocasio-Cortez, graduate of Boston University and daughter of an architect—to advance their narrative of oppression.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/iran-and-9-11/

As Steve Witkoff prepares to begin a new round of negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, it’s important to remember that the Islamic Republic has been at war with the U.S., as well as Israel, for years. In fact, Iran even played a role in 9/11.

On Dec. 22, 2011, U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled in Havlish, et al. v. bin Laden, et al., that Iran and Hizballah were liable for damages to be paid to relatives of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 jihad attacks in New York and Washington, as both the Islamic Republic and its Lebanese proxy had actively aided al-Qaeda in planning and executing those attacks.

Daniels found that Iran and Hizballah had cooperated and collaborated with al-Qaeda before 9/11 and continued to do so after the attacks.

Before 9/11, Iran and Hizballah were implicated in efforts to train al-Qaeda members to blow up large buildings—resulting in the bombings of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.

Former MOIS operative Abolghasem Mesbahi, a defector from Iran, testified that during the summer of 2001, he received messages from Iranian government officials regarding a plan for unconventional warfare against the U.S., entitled Shaitan dar Atash (“Satan in Flames”).

“Satan in Flames” was the elaborate plot to hijack three passenger jets, each packed full of people, and crash them into American landmarks: the World Trade Center, which jihadis took to be the center of American commerce; the Pentagon, the center of America’s military apparatus; and the White House.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/07/09/even-after-trumps-mideast-wins-voters-remain-skeptical-about-peace-in-region-ii-tipp-poll/

President Donald Trump’s bold move to take out Iran’s nuclear arms program and broker a ceasefire between Iran and Israel seems to have worked, at least so far. But while a large share of Americans believe the ceasefire won’t hold, the majority are taking a wait-and-see approach, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll indicates.

The online national I&I/TIPP Poll of 1,421 adults was taken from June 25-27, mere days after the June 22 U.S. military attack to cripple Iran’s nuclear facilities.

I&I/TIPP asked respondents the following question: “Do you believe the recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran will lead to lasting peace in the region?”

Among those taking the poll, the history of the Mideast, with repeated wars between Israel and its neighbors, weighed heavily: 43% said “No, fighting is likely to resume,” versus just 19% who said “Yes, the ceasefire is likely to hold.”

But the big winner wasn’t yay or nay, but rather “wait and see.” Because of the 57% who didn’t say “no,” in addition to the 19% answering “yes,” another 28% said it was “Too soon to tell,” while 10% answered “Not sure.” So, in short, a majority think it’s either a success or too early to know.

So, as has always been the case, in the Mideast uncertainty reigns and trouble always seems to loom on the horizon. And while the picture in the U.S. is further clouded by the usual partisan differences, that’s not really the case this time.

Democrats (14%), Republicans (29%) and independents (12%) are all underwhelmed by the prospects of a lasting peace between Israel and Iran. Pessimism reigns, with Democrats (51%), Republicans (34%) and independents (47%) all seeing it as more probable that war between those countries and possibly others will resume rather than end.

https://swtotd.blogspot.com

“The well-read individual is less likely to succumb to the siren call of Artificial Intelligence – at least to not forget that AI is a machine, an invention for the benefit of mankind, not an invention to replace, or substitute for, mankind.”

To borrow an expression, Artificial Intelligence is all the rage, especially Generative AI and large language models. Estimates of total investments in data centers, GPUs (graphics processing units), training centers and cloud-based applications will reach somewhere between $300 billion and $600 billion in 2025, or roughly half the total U.S. defense budget. One source suggests total data center power consumption for all of 2025 could reach 23 gigawatts, twice the total energy consumption of the Netherlands. The June 28-29, 2025 issue of The Wall Street Journal ran an article on how CEOs of “tech goliaths and heavy-weight venture capitalists are cozying up to a few dozen nerdy researchers,” as their specialized knowledge will be “key to cashing in on the artificial-intelligence revolution.” A few companies are offering pay packages for the highly skilled that can reach seven and eight figures.

There is no question that much good will come from AI, like keeping truckers awake on long-haul trips, performing medical procedures, making warehouses more efficient, speeding up assembly lines, providing stock portfolio selections, or editing essays such as the ones I write. AI will generate content for publishers and news outlets, and make more efficient accountants, lawyers and financial advisors. It may prevent accidents on the freeway. However in the short term, like with any new technology, jobs will be lost. But in the longer term, also as with past technological advancements, new jobs will be created, for the economy is dynamic and new markets will be uncovered. And we cannot ignore that while AI may be able to write a Shakespearean-like sonnet or paint a Picasso-like canvas, AI will never be Shakespeare or Picasso.

If I were sixty years younger – even without a talent for linear algebra and probability theory – I would be thinking of how to use AI in my job, home and every-day life – as a tool, not as a substitute for creativity or intuition, as long as it did my bidding and did not lead me. In full disclosure, I do not use AI, as I don’t want it to influence how I think or what I write. There are people who believe that AI is not just a tool, people like Yuval Noah Harari, professor of History at Hebrew University and author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, who see AI “as an agent, in the sense that it can make decisions independent of us.”