RUTHFULLY YOURS

Their philosophies are antithetical, but the common ground of their contempt for liberty, free speech and all who disagree has spawned an alliance of convenience. How much longer can a supine West tolerate the erosion of institutions, values and public safety?
Back in January, when Curtis Cheng was still alive to return every night to his family and nobody had heard of Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar, Quadrant Online published the essay below. Today, with PM and Opposition Leader alike reacting to the third Islamic terror attack in less than 12 months — Endeavour Hills, Martin Place and, now, Parramatta — by expressing their immediate sympathy for the Muslim community that keeps spawning these monsters, the topic of Islam’s incompatability with democracy is worth re-visiting.

____________________

For many years we have been sold the idea of multicultural Australia as a significant and energising factor in our national evolution. Cultural differences are supposed to be gradually absorbed into the mainstream, leaving it enriched and reinvigorated in the process. When multiculturalism means colourful costumes, exotic recipes and unusual music, there may be some truth in this. At least there is little appreciable harm.

But what happens when those imported cultures involve more than mere fancy dress, when they arrive with their own power relationships, their own political ideologies and a parallel legal system, all of which is incompatible with Australian norms and traditions? What happens when new arrivals have no intention of relinquishing these features of their cultures and integrating into the mainstream? What happens when the intent is first to modify the host culture and, ultimately, to replace it? How do multiculturalism’s promoters propose to deal with a scenario in which one or more of its celebrated minorities is fully committed to promoting its own political agenda?

Women and children are in the minority among the invaders of Europe. But don’t be fooled into thinking they are not dangerous.
Much has been written on conservative news sites about the large percentage of young males invading Europe. There is a great deal to be concerned about regarding this demographic. But the women and children should not be ignored, as they bring their own kind of threat. Because while Muslim men are far more likely to be physically aggressive, Muslim women are not without responsibility for the myriad ways hate against us is nurtured and expressed – hate that is codified in the Quran.

And while Muslim males are more likely to inflict physical harm, it would be dangerous to underestimate the potential of Muslim women to do the same, because increasing numbers of them do, as was the case with this Muslim teenage girl whose greatest desire was to be a martyr for Allah. And so she set out to achieve her dream. And stabbed an Israeli man in the back.

If you think 200,000 invaders imported into the United States is appalling, consider this: Once they settle here, they bring their family. The Australian reported on a leaked document that reveals how this results in the base number of invaders expanding almost overnight. Although the article is about the situation in Germany, the point applies to the United States (or any country accepting these conquerors).

Chancellor Angela Mer­kel is facing open dissent from members of her coalition government amid predictions that the number of migrants arriving in Germany this year could reach 1.5 million. (snip)

The new estimate of 1.5 million came in a confidential government paper leaked to the newspaper Bild. It is widely believed the source of the leak was the interior ministry.

The secret document said each refugee had a “family factor” of four to eight people, meaning they could be expected to arrange for up to eight relatives to join them once settled in….

The “family factor.”

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The false Palestinian narrative of one-sided victimhood is a major hindrance to all efforts in the direction of Israeli-Palestinian peace. Global actors need to help the Palestinians move beyond wallowing in self-pity and rituals of bashing Israel, and towards difficult compromises with Israel.

The speech delivered by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas at the UN General Assembly last week was proof, once again, that the Palestinian “narrative” of victimhood has become a threat to any practical prospect for peace. Palestinian leaders consistently advance an interpretation of history which is at odds not only with the facts but also with their people’s best interests.

At the core of Abbas’ plaintive narration is the notion of the Palestinians as innocent victims, whose right to statehood and independence has been taken away and brutally ignored for much too long. In this telling of history, the Palestinians deserve to be backed by coercive intervention, as soon as possible, so as to impose on Israel a solution which would implement their “”rights.”

This would include implementation of “all relevant UN resolutions” – meaning UN General Assembly resolution 194 (the so-called “right of return”) as well as the Arab (mis)interpretation of resolution 242 as demanding withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 lines.

While Palestinians were killing four Israelis in back-to-back terror attacks last week, I received an email lauding Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for his vital role in fighting such terror. This email was parroting a very popular myth: that Abbas deserves the credit for the past several years of relative calm. Yet in reality, Abbas had nothing to do with producing this calm and little to do with maintaining it. And a simple year-by-year breakdown of the very numbers his cheerleaders cite to praise him is enough to prove it.

The myth relies on one completely true fact: Israeli fatalities have fallen dramatically since the height of the second intifada, from 452 in 2002 to 6 in 2013. But those who seek to credit Abbas for this development overlook two crucial details. First, almost three-quarters of this drop occurred even before Abbas replaced Yasser Arafat as PA president in November 2004. Israeli fatalities fell from their 2002 peak of 452 to 208 in 2003 and 117 in 2004; a cumulative decline of 74 percent. Yet during those years, Arafat was still in charge.

“Hung up on Israel: An explanation for the sincere” (& New Al-Quds rally tomorrow)
CONTENTS
1. Students honor a murderer
2. An email to Bard
3. Rare pro-Israel articles by non-Jewish writers
4. “Hung up on Israel: An explanation for the sincere” (By Jay Nordlinger, National Review, Oct 19, 2015)
5. “Animal Spirits: Israel and its tribe of risk-taking entrepreneurs” (By Luke Johnson, London Sunday Times, Oct 4, 2015)

http://jamieglazov.com/2015/10/10/jamie-glazov-moment-what-a-woman-in-hijab-is-really-saying-to-you/

In this new Jamie Glazov Moment, Jamie discusses What a Woman in Hijab is Really Saying to You, unveiling the terrifying truth about what it really signifies.

Don’t miss this special Jamie Glazov Moment:And make sure to watch the special Jamie Glazov Moment in which Jamie discussed The “Not All Muslims Do That” Suicidal Charade, unveiling how a leftist malicious ploy masquerades as humanitarianism but deceives and destroys.

““If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first,” says the Talmud. [Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, folio 72a.] That is the best response to mass murderers — in 1943, today and always.”

During World War II, 30,000 Jewish partisans fought in Eastern Europe, in their own combat units. In Western Europe, where anti-semitism among the conquered gentile population was less severe, Jews were able to participate as individuals in the national resistance, rather than having to fight in separate units. For example, in France, Jews amounted to less than one percent of French population, but comprised about 15 to 20 percent of the French Resistance. One of the most successful battles of the Jewish resistance was the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Nearly every Jew who participated was eventually killed — but they were going to be killed anyway. By choosing to stand and fight, the Warsaw Jews diverted a significant amount of Nazis resources from battlefields elsewhere, thus hastening the Nazi defeat.

The following is a based on my forthcoming book “The Morality of Self-Defense and Military Action: The Judeo-Christian Tradition,” which will be published in 2016 by Praeger.

Before the war, about 10 percent of Poland’s population was Jewish. In the Middle Ages, Poland had been a welcoming, tolerant and free nation, and many Jews emigrated there. But when Poland regained its independence in 1919, thanks to the Versailles Treaty, the nation degenerated into a military dictatorship which encouraged anti-semitism.

On October 3rd, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Immigration Act.

The 1965 Act did two big things, and a multitude of small ones.ustoadmit

The first big thing it did: abolish the old National-Origins quotas, established in 1921, revised in 1924 and 1929. The idea of the quotas was to maintain demographic stability by limiting settlement from any European country to some fixed percent of that country’s representation in a recent census.

The 1921 Act used the 1910 census as its benchmark. The 1924 Act used the 1890 census in order to reduce the quota numbers on South and East Europeans, who it was thought did not make as good citizens as north and west Europeans. The 1929 revision went to the 1920 census.

To present-day sensibilities it all sounds very horrible: “Whaddya mean, an Italian or a Pole doesn’t make as good a citizen as a German or Irishman? Whoa!”

But that was then and this is now. And personally, I decline to join in the screaming and fainting. I take the old-fashioned view that a nation has the right to admit for settlement whomever it pleases, on any grounds at all, rational or otherwise. It’s up to the people of that nation and their legislators to say who they want to settle. It’s not up to foreigners.

If, when I applied for U.S. citizenship in 2001, the immigration authorities had said: “Sorry, pal, we don’t like the look of your teeth, and we have enough Brits anyway,” it would not have occurred to me that I had any grounds for complaint. I might have wheedled and pleaded a bit—”Come on, just one more won’t hurt, and I’ll find an orthodontist, I promise”— but if they’d sent me back to Blighty at last I would have understood. This country belongs to Americans. It’s for them and their legislators to say who they want joining them.

The newspaper settles the ‘explosive historical question that cuts to the essence of competing claims to what may be the world’s most contested piece of real estate’

Was the White House ever in Washington, D.C.? Can we ever really know for sure? Not unless we dig under the existing structure and find indisputable archaeological evidence of the original structure, which British general Robert Ross is said—by some sources—to have torched in August, 1814.

If you find everything about the previous paragraph patently ridiculous, you are clearly not a reporter or an editor for The New York Times. This morning, the paper of record published a piece about Jerusalem’s Temple Mount , questioning whether or not it was the site of, you know, the Jewish Temple. “Historical Certainty,” the article’s headline reads, “Proves Elusive at Jerusalem’s Holiest Place.” Capping the piece is a quote from Jane Cahill, who the paper notes is not only an archaeologist but also a practicing lawyer and therefore, presumably, an expert on incontrovertible evidence. Did the ancient Jewish temple stand where the Dome of the Rock now stands? “The answer might be ‘yes,’ if the standard of proof is merely a preponderance of the evidence,” Cahill is quoted as saying, “but ‘no’ if the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.”