Senator Cory Booker and "The Only Good Zionist is a Dead Zionist"

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing was the beginning of the Democrat 2020 primaries, and the winner was the Senate Democrat who yelled the worst possible thing.

That was Senator Cory Booker.

Unlike some Senate Dems, Booker didn’t just confine his attack to Brett Kavanaugh, a mild-mannered man widely beloved by both the Democrats and Republicans who worked with him, he went for broke.

The Founding Fathers were racist geniuses, Booker insisted. Their constitution was flawed. Originalism, interpreting the Constitution as it was written, rather than whatever social justice activist the Dems had managed to plant on the bench, is going to be racist and sexist, because its authors were deplorables.

“Native Americans were referred to as savages, women weren’t referred to at all, African Americans were referred to as fractions of human beings. As one civil-rights activist used to say ‘constitutu, constitu, I can only say three-fifths of the word,’” Booker bloviated.

Who is this “civil rights activist”? A violent racist who had called Adolf Hitler “the greatest white man”.

You can see why Booker might have hesitated a bit when using him to bolster his claim that the Founding Fathers of this country were flawed racist sexist men. Even though, unlike Booker’s civil rights hero, they didn’t admire Hitler or call for the mass murder of Jews.

Senator Cory Booker doesn’t yawn without first rehearsing it before three staff members and two consultants to extract the maximum amount of pathos from each fake gesture. He had been regularly delivering the same attack on the Constitution as a stump speech. You can find Senator Cory Booker bleating the same basic remarks last March at SXSW before a much friendlier lefty audience.

“Look, our founding documents are saturated — unfortunately — are scene with replete through them, these examples all those darker strains of human nature,” Booker held forth at SXSW. “Native Americans are referred to as savages, women aren’t referred to at all. Blacks are, you know Stokely Carmichael used to say, constitute constitute I can only say three fifths of the word.”

Booker appeared to have also quoted Carmichael in June of last year and again in July of this year.

There are examples going back several years, with Booker saying, “Stokely Carmichael said it best: we are the leaders we’ve been looking for.”

In a July interview this year, his Stokelyite attack on the Constitution was even harsher. “Yeah, if you read the Declaration of Independence now, you see the Native Americans referred to as “savages.” And women are clearly, by their omission, a second-class citizenry. Stokely Carmichael — I love how he used to always say, ‘Constitu-, constitu- — I can only say three-fifths of the word.’”

But the sneering line about the Constitution isn’t Stokely’s most famous quote.

Two others are way ahead of it: “The only good Zionist is a dead Zionist we must take a lesson from Hitler” and “The only position for women in SNCC is prone."

Anti-Semitism has become socially acceptable among Democrats, but the party that sent in activists to scream that Brett Kavanaugh was a horrible sexist and a sexual harasser by association is okay with Stokely’s sexism and Booker’s admiration of him. The left’s standards, like its vision, are all double.

Stokely Carmichael, better known as Kwame Ture, was a leftist bigot who had called for racist violence.

Black Panther Mark Essex burst into a New Orleans hotel, shouting, “I want the whites!” He murdered a young honeymooning couple, hotel guests and staff members, and a number of police officers. Stokely Carmichael praised Essex, saying, “We should study and learn from the actions of Brother Essex. We should understand that Brother Essex carried our struggle to its next quantitative level, the level of science.”

Carmichael had also declared, “I’ve never admired a white man, but the greatest of them, to my mind, was Hitler.”

"Go home and get your guns," Carmichael had urged after Martin Luther King’s death, "When the white man comes he is coming to kill you. I don't want any black blood in the street.”

"We are preparing groups of urban guerrillas for our defense in the cities," he warned in Communist Cuba. "It is going to be a fight to the death."

Stokely Carmichael burned through the SNCC and moved on the Black Panthers, but his violent hatred of white people proved to be too much even for the black nationalist hate group. But Booker’s hero nurtured a particular hatred of Jews. And his anti-Semitic threats led to actual anti-Semitic attacks.

Nor did Carmichael have any objection to that.

“Zionist pigs have been harassing us everywhere,” he warned at the University of Maryland, “And when this anger rises, will snap our fingers and finish them off."

It was 1990.

Senator Booker has repeatedly quoted a violent racist. At the Kavanaugh hearing, he cited an attack on the legitimacy of our founding documents from an advocate of a socialist black nationalist revolution through mass murder, a supporter of Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and assorted murderous dictators.

And yet there’s nothing extraordinary about it.

Carmichael’s anti-Semitism had been defended in the past by Rep. Keith Ellison, the number two man at the DNC and Dem nominee for Minnesota Attorney General. He was attended by Rep. Maxine Waters.

Americans are treated to non-stop lectures about racism from top lefties like Cory Booker. But they are the ones who are the most in need of those hectoring lectures about the evils of racism.

When former president Barack Obama, former president Bill Clinton and Eric Holder, a top DOJ official in both administrations, have been caught hanging around with Farrakhan, there’s a racism problem.

When Senator Booker casually quotes a violent anti-Semitic racist, there’s a serious racism problem.

It’s a problem of black racism. And until it’s taken seriously, there are no other conversations about racism worth having. When the top figures in the Democrat party are okay with anti-Semitism and racism, then their political faction and its media apparatus has no right to lecture on racism.

In October 2016, Booker tweeted a photo commemorating Farrakhan's Million Man March. "May the unity and spirit of the march continue to live on," he wrote, over a photo of a marcher brandishing a poster that included Louis Farrakhan. No complex interpretation of hand gestures is needed here.

Farrakhan, like Stokely Carmichael, is a racist and anti-Semite who admires Hitler. And he’s a pal of presidents and politicians. Including the men who lecture us on how racist the Founding Fathers were.

There is a deep racist and anti-Semitic disease in the leadership of the Democrats. As Senator Cory Booker brings his hatred for the Jewish State to the Senate, he should be asked whether he agrees with his hero, “The only good Zionist is a dead Zionist we must take a lesson from Hitler”.



Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Muslim Migration and Rape Statistics in Europe

Sweden has one of Europe’s highest rates of sexual assaults.

At 120.79 violent sexual assaults per 100,000 people, and 56 rapes per 100,000, the otherwise bleak socialist country ranks as having the second highest rate of sexual violence in Europe.

What makes Sweden so exceptionally dangerous for women? Its militant feminism is embedded in its political culture and its educational system. Sweden has boasted of a “feminist foreign policy”, 61% of Swedes in one survey identified as feminists and hold the strongest views on “gender equality” of any Europeans. Swedes are the most likely to believe that it’s okay for men to cry. Only 11% believe that women should take care of the home and only 10% believe that it’s a man’s job to support his family.

A local branch of the Left Party in Sweden even demanded that men urinate while sitting down.

And then there are the Czechs, just 13% identify as feminists, 77% think that a woman’s place is in the home, yet the sexual assault rate is 7.79 per 100,000, a tiny fraction of feminist Sweden.

If the real issues were feminism and toxic masculinity, if sufficient educational indoctrination about the evils of masculinity is needed to “teach men not to rape”, women should be safest in Sweden.

So what went wrong?

Instead of traveling from Stockholm to Prague, let’s take a closer trip over to neighboring Finland.

Finland has a third of Sweden’s rape rates and a quarter of its sexual assault rates. Its numbers are still far higher than most of Europe, but nowhere near those of Sweden.

What could possibly explain the difference?

Finland is also fairly feminist, but the Muslim proportion of its population is only a third of Sweden. Finland has a third of Sweden’s Muslim population proportion and a third of its rape rate.

Sweden has the second highest non-indigenous Muslim immigration population rate in Europe and the second highest sexual assault rate in Europe. It would be foolish to pretend that this is a coincidence.

Take Ireland and the United Kingdom. The UK tops even Sweden in Europe’s sexual assault and rape statistics. At 130.96 per 100,000 for sexual assaults and 50.68 per 100,000 for rapes, the United Kingdom is the most dangerous place for women in Europe. One analysis claims that 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted and that 3.1% of women were assaulted in just the last year.

But then why do the numbers for nearby Ireland look so strikingly different? Like Finland, Ireland’s numbers are high, but nowhere near as high as those in the United Kingdom.

The UK’s sexual assault and rape rates are roughly four times as high as those of Ireland. And at 6.3% versus 1.4%, the difference in Muslim population percentages is in almost perfect proportion.

London, with its great diversity, has the highest rape rate within the United Kingdom.

Finland was once part of Sweden. Ireland was once part of the United Kingdom. Unlike comparing distant countries where differences can be accounted for by a great variety of factors, Finland and Ireland serve as a kind of control group measuring the impact of immigration on Europe.

Belgium, which hosts the capitals of the European Union and of Islamic terrorism, is in third place. At 65.92 sexual assaults and 25.50 rapes per 100,000, women are unsafe in the capital of the EU. Meanwhile Hungary, the country in the news for its clashes with the EU over admitting Muslim migrants, has a sexual assault rate of 2.45 and a rape rate of 3.82.

Belgium has the third highest Muslim population rate and the third highest sexual violence rate.

Brussels has a thousand programs and regulations pushing feminism. Hungary has a wall. The lesson from Sweden and Brussels is that if you want to stop rape, professional feminism doesn’t work, walls do.

At 0.86, Serbia has one of the lowest sexual assault rates in Europe. And at 8.8, France has one of the highest. Eastern European countries, generally not known for their militant feminism, have low rates while the more “progressive” Western European countries suffer from very high rates.

The Netherlands has the fourth highest sexual assault rate in Europe and the fourth highest non-indigenous Muslim population rate. Germany has the sixth highest assault rate and the sixth highest Muslim population rate. Not all the numbers add up so well, but those that do are quite disturbing.

There are European countries with low Muslim population rates, but high sexual assault rates. Portugal, Finland and Latvia are all examples. But there is no European country that has a high Muslim immigrant population and a low rate of sexual violence. All of the top Muslim immigrant countries are in the red.

The differences are sometimes striking when measuring culturally dissimilar neighbors.

Germany sits next door to Poland. Sexual assaults in Germany clock in at 33.55 while in Poland, they’re at 1.40. Muslims make up 6.1% of Germany and less than 0.1% of Poland.

The statistics suggest that the key factor is not necessarily a high Muslim population, but a high Muslim immigrant population. Bulgaria has a sizable Muslim population that has been living there for a very long time. And its sexual violence rates are quite low. It’s particularly immigrant populations coming from societies with a very different set of Islamic mores that lead to epidemics of sexual violence.

European countries with ancient Muslim populations don’t appear to have large sexual assault rates. It’s the countries that admitted large numbers of Muslim migrants in a matter of decades that are suffering.

Islamic doctrines and Arabic cultural mores that permit, explicitly or implicitly, the sexual assault of non-Muslim women who are not dressed properly or walk unaccompanied by a male relative, are pernicious. And Muslims rapists in Europe and Australia have cited belief and culture in their defense. But mass migration is often inherently disruptive, breaking down values and trust in stable communities.

That trust then has to be rebuilt in ways that the media and the entertainment industry frequently reduce to simplistic moralizing tales about trusting people who are different, but that in practice take generations to restore lost social capital. There can be gains along the way, but any honest accounting must measure the horrifying losses, including these shocking assault rates, against the gains.

Sweden has the second highest non-indigenous Muslim population rate in Europe and the second highest sexual assault rate in Europe. Belgium has the third highest Muslim population rate and the third highest sexual violence rate. The Netherlands has the fourth highest sexual assault rate in Europe and the fourth highest Muslim population rate. Germany has the sixth highest assault rate and the sixth highest Muslim population rate. Are all of these numbers just a random coincidence?

Feminist government policies don’t stop sexual violence. Not when the same feminist governments open the borders to mass migrations from countries where women have no legal or cultural rights.

The more open a European country is to Muslim mass migration, the more dangerous it is to women.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

The Democratic Socialists of America and Their Anti-Semitism Problem

“Like most American Jews, I was raised with the delusion that Israel was a safe haven for me,” Julia Salazar wrote on Mondoweiss, an anti-Semitic hate site, while denouncing the Jewish State.

Salazar’s rant had appeared on a racist site whose creator had complained that his publication had been banned from DailyKos because of “my repeated insistence on talking about the large Jewish presence in the American establishment and the importance of Jewish money in the political process” and one of whose editors had declared, "I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, but I can understand why some are."

In reality, Salazar had been baptized as a Catholic, her uncle was a Jesuit priest, and her brother made it clear that no one in the family was Jewish. The Jewish part of her past was as fake as the rest.

And it was this biography that the Democratic Socialists of America candidate was running on. The DSA had been hoping to turn Salazar into the next Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, with the support of radical lefties like Cortez, Cynthia Nixon and Zephyr Teachout by playing up her imaginary biography.

But Salazar, a socialist candidate running for the State Senate in New York, had lied about that, and nearly everything else. Caught on video, claiming, “I immigrated to this country when I was little,” she had actually been born in Miami to an Italian-American mother and a Columbian immigrant father. Despite growing up in a mansion, she claimed to have a working class background. Her mother and her brother between them tore up most of her fake biography of a hardscrabble, immigrant life.

But it was the original expose by The Tablet of Julia Salazar’s lie about her Jewishness that started the flood. And the response from Salazar and her supporters was to accuse the Jewish community of racism.

Salazar, who had her own anti-Semitic history on Twitter, accused the Jewish publication that had exposed her appropriation of Jewish identity for anti-Semitic purposes of practicing, “race science.” The socialist candidate and her supporters insisted that as a “woman of color”, she was a victim of Jewish racism. The Democratic Socialists of America backed their candidate and repeated her anti-Jewish slurs.

Salazar's campaign had put out a statement claiming that the "fact that, as a woman of color, I am facing accusations that my deeply held identity is a false one says more about the politics of Jewish identity" and was an example of Jews practicing the "bigoted policing of the identity of Jewish people of color".

New York City DSA co-chair Bianca Cunningham echoed Salazar's anti-Semitic smear by dismissing outrage in the Jewish community as a question of "whether or not a woman of color can practice that religion."

Instead of apologizing for her misrepresentations and exploitation of the Jewish community, the DSA’s socialist candidate had accused her Jewish critics of racism. And the DSA took up Salazar’s smear.

Salazar’s meltdown wasn’t the first time that the Democratic Socialists of America had backed anti-Semitic candidates and then stood by them no matter how ugly their bigotry became.

On the other side of the country, DSA-LA continues to back Maria Estrada for California State Assembly District 63 despite her praise for Farrakhan, accusations that Jews were exploiting the Holocaust, and attacking a Jewish Democrat for not keeping “your party, your religion and your people in check.”

"Anyone who believes they are one of ‘God’s chosen people’ automatically feels superior and justified in all they do," Estrada ranted.

Estrada’s racism was criticized by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, reported on in numerous Jewish publications, and yet the DSA and Bernie Sanders’ Our Revolution, refused to withdraw their support. When contacted about her hateful views, both the local and national DSA, as well as the local and national Our Revolution organizations, failed to condemn Estrada.

Estrada’s accusation that the Jews exploit the Holocaust was echoed by her fellow racist in New York. "These people exploit Holocaust for their hot takes," Salazar had tweeted.

The anti-Semitic rhetoric of Democratic Socialists of America candidates like Estrada and Salazar may be inevitable. The DSA views Corbyn’s Labour, with its embrace of anti-Semitism, as its political model.

The DSA’s 2017 convention featured a speaker from the Momentum movement within Labour, a subset which has been linked to much of the harassment of Jews in Labour. At his appearance, the DSA faithful burst out cheering for Jeremy Corbyn, an anti-Semitic bigot and terrorist supporter.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, the former Chief Rabbi, described Corbyn as an “existential threat” to British Jews, who gives “support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate, who want to kill Jews and remove Israel from the map" and uses “the language of classic prewar European anti-Semitism.”

"Anti-Semitism has returned to mainland Europe within living memory of the Holocaust,” Rabbi Sacks warned.

This is the bigot whose name the DSA conference met with unrestrained applause on the same day that it voted to support BDS. Is it any wonder that the DSA has refused to condemn Estrada’s anti-Semitism or Salazar’s malicious smears of Jews?

The Labour speaker invited to the DSA conference was Marcus Barnett, who had cheered Venezuelan socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro. In addition to murdering protesters, seizing power and presiding over a country where there’s no drinking water, power or food, Maduro had at one point demanded that "the Jews that live in our lands" do something to stop Israel.

Also at the DSA convention was a representative from Melenchon's France Insoumise. Melenchon’s blatant anti-Semitism, was so bad that it was even condemned by members of the DSA’s Jewish Caucus.

But instead of insisting that the DSA end its ties to an anti-Semitic movement, Lane Silberstein, a DSA and If Not Now member, weakly argued that, "Jewish socialists have had to contend with one of history’s most egregious eras of antisemitism— from which the left was not immune in promoting — and yet they continued to proudly identify as socialists… we will carry on that tradition and not shy away from working with the left.” The technical term for that is collaboration with anti-Semites.

Much as when D.C. Councilmember Trayon White accused the Jews of controlling the weather, the same leftist activists who rushed out to defend Salazar, Women's March's Sophie Ellman-Golan and If Not Now's Rafael Shimunov, came to his defense. White makes frequent appearances in editions of the Washington Socialist, the house organ of the MDCDSA, which has been able to lobby the D.C. racist.

It’s not only Julia Salazar who fundamentally misrepresented her background. Salazar, like Ocasio-Cortez, is a bid at humanizing radical leftists and making their movements appear more approachable.

But what’s behind the scenes is an ugly alt-left.

The same year that Corbyn's man showed up to be hailed by the DSA in Chicago, Bhaskar Sunkara, a former DSA vice chair and Jacobin Magazine publisher, ran a GoFundMe fundraiser to "Internationalize the DSA Convention".

Bhaskar's goal was to cover airfare for "members of Jeremy Corbyn's staff, Momentum, France Insoumise". The fundraiser's banner included the Soviet flag waving from a rifle barrel.

That’s the same flag under which countless Jews were arrested, tortured, imprisoned in camps and murdered. It’s the same flag under which Judaism and Hebrew were effectively outlawed. It’s the flag of the regime that spread its anti-Semitic propaganda through the left at home and around the world.

After the Julia Salazar scandal broke, Bhaskar Sunkara announced that he was so outraged by a Jewish magazine’s expose of the Socialist scammer that he would be donating to her campaign.

The DSA’s anti-Semitism isn’t accidental or sloppy. It’s not just about Israel. It’s ideological.

The Democratic Socialists of America attract anti-Semites for the same reason that Corbyn does. And, like Corbyn’s Labour, it ignores the problem, attacks Jewish critics and covers for its hateful allies.

The media has made much of the rise of socialism. But the rise of the DSA won’t just be dangerous for freedom and civil rights in this country. It will pose a threat to the safety and security of American Jews.

The DSA threatens to ‘Corbynize’ the Democrats into an anti-Semitic political movement.



Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Acid Attacks, Witchcraft and Britain's Diversity

2017 was a banner year for acid attacks in Britain.

465 of them occurred in London. Most of the acid attacks are taking place in East London. The borough of Newham tops the acid attacks chart with 85 last year. What’s so special about Newham?

Nothing the media will tell you.

Newham has the second highest Muslim percentage population and the lowest native British population in London. Tower Hamlets, which has the highest Muslim population percentage, has the second highest rate of acid attacks.

None of the two dozen media explainers pretending to explain why London became the world’s acid attack capital have bothered citing that simple statistic. Instead there’s lots of mumbling about poverty, gang violence and the need for household cleaner control. To add on to the failed knife control policy.

The UK boasts the highest number of recorded acid attacks in the world. It narrowly beats out Bangladesh for the honor only because it has more transparent crime statistics and because a sizable percentage of the population of that Muslim country has relocated to the cozy boroughs of London.

Bangladeshis are one of the largest populations making up Newham and Tower Hamlets. Add on the Pakistanis, also world champions of acid hurling, and three other countries and minorities who also figure prominently in those areas, and it’s clear that immigration transplanted acid attacks to the UK.

London has an acid attack problem for the same reason that it has an Islamic terrorism problem. And it has them for the same reasons it has an honor killing problem, a sex grooming gang problem, an FGM problem and a witch problem.

Yes, witch problem.

British Department of Education statistics show that there were over 1,400 child abuse cases between 2016 and 2017 based on the belief of the parents that their children were witches or demons.

Acid attacks in London were up 500% since 2012. And witchcraft and demonic possession child abuse is up 900% since 2011. Those numbers show just how immigration and diversity are transforming the UK.

In 2012, there was already the one thing that no government could be without in a crisis: an action plan. The “National Action Plan to Tackle Child Abuse linked to Faith or Belief” debuted. It noted that, “Cases of adults inflicting physical violence or emotional harm on children they regard as witches or possessed by evil spirits are known across the world.” Except that they weren’t common in the UK in 500 years.

The action plan's example was Kristy Bamu, a teenage boy, who was tortured for days, and had his teeth smashed, before being drowned by his sister and brother-in-law for being a witch.

The Bamus were from the Congo. The murder happened in Newham which has a sizable population of Congolese immigrants. Believing that children are witches is common enough in the Democratic Republic of Congo that there are 50,000 “child witches” living on the streets of Kinshasa.

How many child witches will there be living on the streets and dying in the flats of London in a decade?

Despite the British government’s action plan, the number of child abuse witchcraft cases just keeps rising. No amount of action plans can solve a problem whose roots are buried in faith and culture.

Trying to convince people who believe in witchcraft and demonic possessions that they shouldn’t torture children is as futile as convincing people who believe in the supremacy of Islam not to kill.

Between 2016 and 2017, not only were there over 1,400 cases of witchcraft child abuse, but there were over 5,300 recorded cases of women and girls who had undergone female genital mutilation.

33% of the cases had come through Somalia. 88% had come out of Africa.

Mutilating girls in this fashion is illegal in the UK. But the law is effectively not enforced. The few prosecutions ended in acquittals or dismissals.

Police reports of FGM cases meanwhile rose from 137 in 2014 to 647 in 2016. A 372% increase.

Newham, one of the “youngest and most diverse” boroughs, has hundreds of girls estimated to be at risk for FGM. Newham has its own Female Genital Mutilation Prevention Service and the NHS has a special clinic for FGM victims serving women from Waltham Forest, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Redbridge. Newham takes third place for FGM among London’s boroughs. Top honors went to Southwark. Only 57% of the population of Southwark was born in the United Kingdom.

But between the acid attacks, the witchcraft and the genital mutilation, Newham truly has it all.

“Honour” based violence, everything from honor killings to FGM to forced marriage, reported to the police rose from 3335 in 2014 to 5105 in 2016.

What do a 500% rise in acid attacks, a 900% increase in witchcraft child abuse and a 372% rise in FGM police reports have in common? They’re the wages of diversity and demographic change.

Islamic terrorism is only the most obvious and explosive charge in the clash of cultures.

FGM, honor killings and witchcraft child abuse, all efforts by traditional cultures to control their children, only increased because of the transition of these immigrant groups to the UK. Like Islamic terrorism, these forms of abuse are a reaction to and rejection of a new society. The difference is that the violence of Islamic terrorism or the Muslim sex grooming gangs are external, directed at the surrounding culture, while torturing and killing your own children is violence directed internally within the community.

Both types of brutality are a clear statement that an immigrant group feels that its values are threatened by living in the UK and that it seeks to protect those values through violence.

Diversity is a mechanical talking point in the modern world. A pause inserted into every sentence. A cliché beaten to death in every pamphlet. But diversity not only brings acid attacks, witch torture, Islamic terrorism, honor killings, FGM and a thousand other horrors into the United Kingdom, those horrors are also a response to and a rejection of the same diversity that immigration advocates adore.

Parents torturing their children and terrorists blowing themselves up in London are not only clear evidence that diversity has failed, they are diverse attacks on diversity by very diverse populations.

It’s fashionable for the smart set to believe that the majority, white people, hates diversity. But it’s the bombers and stabbers, the torturers and mutilators, who truly hate diversity. And so they have doubled down on the same measures that they used to keep their children in line in their own home countries.

They don’t want their children turning British and they’re willing to mutilate their genitals, smash out their teeth, run them over, and marry them off at a young age to make certain that they don’t.

And some of those children grow up convinced that the way to redeem themselves in the eyes of their parents, to prove that, despite all evidence, they haven’t been tainted by British ways, is to run over members of the hated native population in the streets, stab them, shoot them or blow them up.

Al Qaeda and ISIS have gained so many adherents in Europe and America because diversity is hated. Immigrant populations hate diversity far more than the biggest right wing activist ever could.

Conservatives make rational arguments against the blind worship of diversity. Muslims fight and die to stop it. Immigrant groups mutilate, abuse and kill their own children out of hatred of diversity.

Maybe it’s time to listen to those rational arguments.

Either that or watch another 900%, 500% or 300% spike in honor killings, witchcraft child abuse, acid attacks and genital mutilations. Or the latest round of Islamic terrorist attacks tearing through London.

Arguments, even the most rational ones, can be ignored. Violence can’t.

Rational arguments warn of the consequences of stupid behavior. But the consequences are an even better argument. And, unlike arguments, the more you ignore them, the worse the consequences get.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

The Problem of Anti-Semitic Leftist Jewish Power

Anti-Israel activist Peter Beinart had spent years arguing that Hamas was a potentially moderate organization. Then when he was questioned at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport, he played victim.

But as Caroline Glick notes, there was every reason for Israeli authorities to question Beinart’s visit, because the anti-Israel BDS activist had participated in anti-Israel protests in Israel. Beinart was not, despite his claims, detained. He was asked about his participation in that protest by the Center for Jewish Nonviolence. The Center, despite its name, is used by Jewish Voice for Peace members, a BDS hate group, which also, despite its name, advocates for and supports terrorists who attack Israel.

JVP members are on the banned list. Beinart had participated in a protest organized by a group that it used as a vehicle. So it’s completely normal that he was asked about it just as visitors to this country are asked about their membership in prohibited organizations such as the Nazi, Communist and other totalitarian parties. The BDS blacklist that bigots like Beinart rave about is no different than the United States blacklist on anyone who “has used a position of prominence to endorse terrorism.”

That’s the BDS movement.

JVP declared that it was proud to host Rasmea Odeh. Odeh had been convicted of a supermarket bombing in Israel that killed Edward Joffe and Leon Kanner: two Hebrew University students. It called the terrorist an “inspiration” and used the hashtag, #HonorRasmea. That’s using “a position of prominence to endorse terrorism” which gets you banned from both the United States and Israel.

Beinart writes for The Forward, a paper notorious for attacks on Israel and Jews that veer into the anti-Semitic. Typically anti-Semitic Forward headlines include, "3 Jewish Moguls Among Eight Who Own as Much as Half the Human Race” and "Why We Should Applaud The Politician Who Said Jews Control The Weather."

Beinart, an anti-Jewish activist of Jewish descent, is the perfect fit for an anti-Jewish tabloid of Jewish descent. The Forward's rebranding dropped the "Jewish" part of its name in 2015. That was also the year that Beinart accused Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel of a “tendency, to whitewash Jewish behavior.”

"He is largely blind to the harm Jews cause," Beinart railed against Wiesel in terms ominously similar to those used by anti-Semites. Israel, he claimed, "leads gentiles of goodwill to fear that if they criticize Israel they’ll be called anti-Semites." Peter Beinart or Richard Spencer: who wore the bigotry best?

But the gauzy line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is if anything even thinner among obsessive Israel bashers of Jewish origin like Beinart or The Forward’s Jane Eisner, its radical editor who stripped the lefty tabloid of its Jewishness, but not of its poisonous hatred of Jews. On the cocktail party circuit, Beinart is misleadingly billed as a ‘liberal Zionist.’ Like the Holy Roman Empire, he’s neither a liberal nor a Zionist. Neither liberals nor Zionists excuse Hamas or blame the victims of terror for their own deaths.

Terrorism is a "response to Israel’s denial of basic Palestinian rights," Beinart has insisted. It’s “the Israeli government is reaping what it has sowed.” His vicious hatred of the Jewish State is matched by his crush on Hamas. "Hamas is the final frontier," Beinart bloviated in 2009. “A shift in US and Israeli policy towards Hamas is long overdue,” he insisted in 2011. And seven years later, it’s still overdue.

Recently in The Forward, Beinart compared Israel's embargo on Hamas to Soviet gulags and Hiroshima. American Jews, he poisonously insisted, were responsible for "the strangulation of 2 million human beings." (Much of the column is actually recycled from a 2014 Beinart column. This self-plagiarism is typical of Beinart who hasn't said anything new in a decade. He only says it more shrilly.)

In that same column, Peter Beinart blamed Israel for not having “embraced” a Hamas government. Unlike Israel, Beinart has embraced Hamas and spent a decade blaming Israel for not following suit. Beinart castigates American Jews for giving Israel the benefit of the doubt, but that’s exactly what he does for a genocidal Islamic terrorist organization that has been killing Jews, in its Muslim Brotherhood incarnations, before the Gaza blockade, before the Six Day War, and before an independent Israel.

Like most anti-Semites, the anti-Zionism of Beinart, The Forward and most of the anti-Jewish Jews is a pretext. Bashing Israel is just an excuse for bashing Jews. It’s why Beinart’s critique of Wiesel’s position on Israel quickly becomes a discourse on Jewish power and the “atrocity” of the Purim story.

It's why Roger Cohen's New York Times column praising Beinart's attack on Zionism was titled, "The Dilemmas of Jewish Power." Jewish power is the theme that Beinart returns to again and again in his attacks on the Jewish community. It’s also the theme of The Forward’s clique of Jewish bashers. And it’s the quintessential theme of anti-Semites on the left and the right, Jewish and non-Jewish.

Reducing the question to Jewish power is a classic leftist formula for legitimizing anti-Semitism. The left is not concerned with questions of right and wrong, but with power and powerlessness. Every leftist critique of Israel takes the same microscopic view, ignoring history and context, zooming in on the relative strengths of Hamas and the IDF, the GDPs of Israel and Gaza, while ignoring over a thousand years of Muslim persecution of Jews, and the Muslim world that stands behind Hamas, and announcing that might makes wrong. But Beinart and The Forward take that formula way beyond the green line.

Their critique of Jewish power is the same in America as it is in Israel.

When a black Washington D.C. councilman affiliated with the left claimed that Jews control the weather, Eisner’s Forward published not one, but two defenses of his hateful views, by attacking Jews.

"We are pretending Jewish education is showing our brutal historical treatment in ghettos — while in the same breath stepping over today’s ghettos to do so, and attacking a man representing one of them," Rafael Shimunov railed against Jews with, "300 times his wealth, and 1,000 times his privilege."

Shimunov wears multiple hats. He’s a top dog at the Working Families Party which was an ally of the weather control councilman, and a member of the anti-Israel hate group, If Not Now, dubbed by Beinart in The Forward as a Jewish Black Lives Matter. But If Not Now disavowed Beinart’s praise. BLM claims to stand for black lives, while If Not Now isn’t fighting for Jewish lives. It’s fighting to destroy them.

Whether it’s Hamas or an anti-Semitic council member, the left’s argument is the same. Bigotry and murder are only wrong when practiced by the powerful against the powerless. Instead of defending themselves or protesting, Jews must realize that they are the guilty ones because of their power.

The left has two types of identitarian movements. Those of the powerless take power. And those of the powerful destroy theirs. Jews have been marked as a powerful group. The only Jewish movements that the left will tolerate are those that, like If Not Now, are dedicated to the destruction of the Jews. That’s why a leftist Jewish civil rights organization is an impossible contradiction in terms.

It’s not about Israel. It’s about Jews.

To understand how the left sees Jews, make one simple adjustment to their lexicon that strips away a common euphemism. When Forward editor Jane Eisner wonders, “Are African Refugees Paying The Price Of Jewish Power?”, the right way to read that is to spell “Power” as “Evil.”

The Forward is full of critical headlines about “Jewish Power,” from “New Film Reveals The Perils of Jewish Power,” to “The Burdens of Jewish Power” and “How the Jews Are Tarnished by Money.”

Jewish power, Karl Marx, whose bearded visage still sneers from The Forward’s old building, claimed, is self-interest. That self-interest has corrupted Jews. And Jewish self-interest has corrupted the world. Only socialism, enlightened global altruism, can redeem the world from the corruption of the Jews.

Behind the special pleading, the foaming outrage, the laughable invocations of Jewish tradition and morality, Beinart, Eisner, The Forward and Jewish Voice for Peace are working off the same Marxist critique of Jews. Israel’s crime and that of its Jewish supporters, they contend, is that its self-interest has corrupted Jewish morality. The only way to redeem the Jews is to destroy Jewish self-interest.

To destroy Israel.

Only by abandoning their self-interest, their power, even their survival, can they atone for what Marxist anti-Semites, from their great bearded master on down, see as the ‘original sin’ of the Jews.

Marx saw Judaism as the embodiment of Jewish self-interest. For the latter-day left, for whom Judaism doesn’t exist, Israel is Marx’s embodiment of Jewish clannish power. Like Marx, the anti-Israel left is convinced that Israel corrupts and controls America. Even, echoing the old leftist anti-Semite, that America is becoming like Israel. Destroying Israel will liberate Jews from their selfish Jewishness.

Peter Beinart, The Forward and JVP aren’t putting forward bold new ideas. Their Jewish sources are not, as they claim, the prophets of Israel or the Kotzker Rebbe, but the original prototype of the anti-Jewish Jew. Their prophet is the pathological anti-Semite who raved, “What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.”

Over a century and a half later, Marxist criticism of the Jews has made few innovations, replacing Judaism with Israel, and to a lesser degree, money with power. Leftist anti-Zionism is so hard to distinguish from anti-Semitism because its roots are still in the same anti-Semitic Marxist sewer.

The Anti-Jewish Jews preach the salvific powers of the left to redeem the selfishness of the Jews. Only the left can save Jews from Jewish power. Only the left can redeem Jews from clinging to their guns, bible, and land by destroying Israel.

Karl Marx was right about one thing. There is a struggle between Judaism and the left. For the left to win, Judaism must be destroyed. And Beinart and The Forward are still waging his war on Judaism.

And the Jews of Israel are winning through the traditional Jewish strategy of surviving. Every Jewish child born in Israel, every Jewish home that rises on a hill, is a defeat for Beinart, The Forward, and the left.

Is it any wonder that Peter Beinart can’t stop making the case for Hamas?





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine at the following link.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

In the Capital of British Pakistan

Muslim terrorists attacking the British Parliament in cars has become an annual tradition.

Khalid Masood did it last year, running over pedestrians before slamming into the railing of Westminster Palace, and then going on a brief stabbing spree that ended when he was shot dead by an armed police officer, who unlike the unarmed police officer he stabbed to death, had a gun because he was protecting a government official. 2017’s parliamentary attack ended with 5 dead and dozens injured.

This year, Salih Khater decided to have a go at parliament even though it was out for the summer recess. He smashed his car into a barrier near Westminster Palace after running over a number of pedestrians. The Sudanese refugee was much less successful at it, wounding only 3 people and killing no one.

Both Muslim terrorists not only carried out attacks against the same location, they had been living at addresses 10 minutes apart. Sater, 2018’s parliamentary terrorist, had been living above the Bunna internet café in South Birmingham. Masood, 2017’s parliamentary terrorist, had made his home over the Shiraz Persian restaurant, owned by a devout Muslim, also in Birmingham.

Muslims make up over 1 in 5 persons of the population of this former British working-class stronghold. Sparkhill, named after the gently flowing Spark Brook, once a hub of British life, has had its history erased by the migrant flood, until it was dubbed by BBC’s Citizen Khan sitcom as "the capital of British Pakistan." The Mermaid Inn, a local landmark pub which dated back centuries, was turned into an ethnic restaurant. Various other historic pubs have declined into grimy Pakistani eateries.

Sparkhill’s British past is becoming as much a matter of archeology as the Roman coins occasionally dug up under its streets. Its present is violent, murderous and Islamic. Its future is yet to be decided.

It’s only fitting that the “Capital of British Pakistan” should be at war with the British Parliament.

The “Capital of British Pakistan” was also where the ‘Three Musketeers’, Naweed Ali, Khobaib Hussain, and Mohibur Rahman had etched "Kafir", meaning non-Muslim Infidel, in Arabic, on their meat cleavers in preparation for a killing spree last year. Evelyn Road, where Ali and Hussain had lived, was once famous for its Church of the English Martyrs. But there is a different breed of martyr in Sparkhill now.

These three Birmingham terror plotters shouldn’t be confused with Irfan Naseer, Irfan Khalid, and Ashik Ali, who had called themselves the Four Lions while plotting to kill as many Britons as possible through everything from setting off nail bombs, to shooting up synagogues to attaching blades to a car and running over non-Muslims.

"Just drive it into people in crowded area," Khalid had suggested.

The terror plot was funded by collecting on Ramadan for Muslim Aid. Some of the money went to a Muslim school. The rest for terror.

Nasser hailed from Sparkhill and Khalid from Sparkbrook.

They were among eleven Birmingham Muslims sentenced in that Islamic terror plot.

1 in 10 imprisoned Islamic terrorists in the UK came out of the “Capital of British Pakistan”. It was where the money for the massive Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels changed hands. The money, which helped kill over 100 people in two other countries, came from welfare payments made to Anwar Haddouchi, a Muslim in Birmingham, even though he had long since left to join ISIS. Two other Muslim colonists in Birmingham, Zakaria Boufassil, and Mohammed Ali Ahmed, passed along the cash.

And that’s not the only international terror connection to Sparkhill. Sparkhill was also where Imam Tarik Chadlioui, the Muslim religious leader accused of contact with one of the Bataclan Islamic terror bombers who killed 89 people in Paris, lived and is facing extradition to Spain over Jihad videos.

The roads of the Jihad lead to Birmingham.

When Al Shabaab, the Somali Islamic terror group allied with Al Qaeda, filmed a recruitment video aimed at Muslim settlers in the UK, it listed Birmingham as its top source of recruits.

The UK’s first Al Qaeda bomber came out of Birmingham. Over in Sparkbrook, Moinal Abedin had turned his house into a bomb factory after 9/11. After serving his sentence, he’s a free man in Birmingham. Some years later, Rashid Rauf plotted to blow up planes flying from the UK to the US using soda cans. (A soda can was eventually used by ISIS to blow up a passenger plane in Egypt killing everyone on board.)

Birmingham’s real Citizen Khan emerged when Parviz Khan of Alum Rock led a plot to kidnap and behead a British soldier. Zahoor Iqbal, one of his henchmen, was also from Birmingham. Last year, Zahid Hussain, was busted with a pressure cooker bomb in Birmingham. Like a number of other Muslim terrorists, he had used Christmas tree lights as a detonator and planned to blow it up on a rail line.

Like Citizen Khan and Rauf, Hussain was from Alum Rock in Birmingham. Ummariyat Mirza was also arrested last year in Alum Rock for preparing for a knife attack. His wife, Madihah Taheer, was also arrested. His sister had been passing around pictures of severed heads and other ISIS propaganda.

"Can we get married already?" Taheer had asked. "I want you to kill people for me I have a list."

Possible targets for the Birmingham knife attack had included the RAF and a synagogue.

Junaid Hussain, the head of ISIS' Cyber-Caliphate unit, which published the addresses of American soldiers, hailed from Birmingham. As did many other ISIS recruits including Awat Hamasalih, Rasheed Benyahiya, Gabriel Ramus, Humza Ali, Anas Abdala, Abdelatif Gaini, and Tareena Shakil, who took her toddler with her to join ISIS, and Ali Akbar Zeb. A number of these were the so-called “paintball Jihadis”.

Yusuf Sarwar and Mohammed Nahin Ahmed were jailed on charges of preparing for terrorist acts.

These are some of the examples why Birmingham has been dubbed “Terror Central” by the British press.

British authorities meanwhile are up to their old ostrich games. Shortly after the latest Muslim attack on the British Parliament, they dispatched armed police to protect Birmingham mosques from some broken windows. Had there been armed police on the scene during last year’s attack on Parliament, some of the five victims of that Muslim terrorist attack might still be alive. That’s real broken windows policing.

Amnesty’s UK Director called the broken windows, rather than the murderous terror attack that preceded them, “another shocking example of a hateful attack on our streets.”

There are no shortage of hateful attacks coming out of Birmingham. But they’re coming from inside the mosques, not from outside. And yet the media and the authorities have already found it more urgent that windows were broken in a mosque than that a terrorist attacked a center of British government.

At the Birmingham Central Mosque, whose chair had attacked counterterrorism as Islamophobic for singling out Muslims, and which had booed a Muslim police commander after the previous parliament attack, a trustee whined about Islamophobia and claimed that they are the real victims.

"It’s affecting people who are the most vulnerable in society.”

The most vulnerable people in society aren’t Muslim settlers in Birmingham. They’re the tourists visiting the British parliament in 2019. Or any time another Birmingham Muslim terrorist tries to run them over.

And maybe the next “Citizen Khan”, from the capital of British Pakistan, will successfully attack the capital of Britain.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

The Billion Dollar Homeless Scam

New York City will be spending $2.06 billion on its Department of Homeless Services. There are 61,421 homeless people in the city which is spending $33,539 per homeless person.

That’s only a little short of the starting salary of an FDNY firefighter at $39,000.

More money will be spent on the homeless than on the firefighters who save New Yorkers from burning buildings. The FDNY will have to make do with $2.04 billion, and the health department with $1.6 billion.

That’s impressive for DHS, a department that was only created in 1993 by the disgraced Dinkins administration and is now burning through more cash than agencies fulfilling actual vital city functions.

Two years ago, DHS had over 2,600 employees. That’s 1 employee to every 23 homeless people. Meanwhile 234 New Yorkers get only 1 police officer to serve and protect them from criminals.

Has this vast infusion of cash solved homelessness in the city? Nope.

New York’s homeless population has kept on growing until it now has more homeless people than any other city. New York City’s homeless growth rate is also faster than that of any other city.

Maybe because it spends more than any other city. But Los Angeles is catching up.

Its $4.6 billion package of homeless tax increases are staggering. Los Angeles doubled its homeless budget to $450 million. Los Angeles County plans to spend $374 million. That’s 1 percent of a budget meant to service a population of over 10 million going to just 53,193 people.

As Los Angeles threw more money at the homeless problem, its homeless population increased 26%.

New York City and Los Angeles only account for 3 to 5 percent of the country’s population, but for a quarter of the country’s homeless population. Even considering inflated real estate prices in both cities, a national problem should not be this disproportionately concentrated in only two cities.

San Francisco will be spending $279 million on 7,499 homeless people. Seattle is spending $63 million, up from $39 million four years ago, while the Puget Sound area may be spending up to $1.06 billion.

Seattle’s homeless population is up 44% in two years to 5,500. The Seattle Times claims that Seattle has a higher concentration of homeless than New York and Los Angeles.

New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Portland, Seattle and the Bay Area are responsible for much of the national growth in homelessness. Activists blame the crisis on soaring real estate prices. While those are some of the most expensive cities in the country, they’ve been that way for quite some time.

Rapid gentrification may catch local residents by surprise in cities with more recent booms. But no one is likely to be surprised by the cost of living in the Bay Area, Los Angeles or New York City. And those cities are also dedicating the most resource to fighting homelessness while only making the problem worse.

The statistics on homelessness are full of such curious mysteries. Why do New York and California have more homeless people than 30 states combined?

Why does Texas have only 17% of the homeless population of California? Why does Colorado have four times the homeless population of Utah? Why do Oregon and Washington have more homeless than Montana, Idaho, South and North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa combined?

The pattern is political. And lucrative.

Social crises justify huge spending and expansions of the government. The homeless crisis is largely a problem in lefty cities where it’s heavily subsidized.

Federal HUD homeless grants hit $2 billion in 2018.

Homelessness statistics often come from the very agencies that are being glutted with cash to fight the problem. Worse still, many of the counts are being carried out by volunteers. Verification is chancy. Billions are being spent on a problem whose growth and scope is being charted by the self-interested.

The billions being poured into solving the problem are going everywhere but to the homeless.

In Los Angeles, the billions in tax hikes going to build homeless housing are being spent on units that cost an average of $479,000 per unit. At that rate, it would take $15 billion to house all the homeless.

That’s 150% of the entire budget. And by then the population would have doubled.

The building boom is going on even though Los Angeles County already has plenty of beds in shelters that aren’t being used. Anyone who travels downtown can see homeless encampments rising around homeless shelters. More than half of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) shelters aren't filling their beds. The average utilization rate is 78%. The problem isn’t a shortage.

Homelessness is largely a mental health and drug abuse issue. The issue isn’t a lack of housing.

But that hasn’t stopped cities like Los Angeles and New York from spending billions on housing programs that aren’t addressing the core issue of homelessness. But they were never meant to.

Homelessness is a manufactured crisis that funnels money to special interests, building up a social welfare sector of the government, while subsidizing and fueling the scale and scope of the problem

New York City is blowing through $1.1 billion to house the homeless in hotels introducing drug use and prostitution problems into luxury rooms. It’s building homeless shelters in neighborhoods that are protesting the crime and drug use such places bring. The overall plan to spend $2.6 billion to build 15,000 units to deal with the homeless crisis isn’t working very well.

The Department of Homeless Services is allowing shelters to name their own price for housing residents. Rates went from $78 per person to four or five times that. Housing the homeless runs to $328.58 a day at one shelter run by Samaritan Village, a major shelter provider. That’s the price of a luxury hotel room.

Samaritan Village, which runs much of New York City’s homeless shelters, is headed by Tino Hernandez, the former Deputy Commissioner for Adult Services at the Department of Homeless Services. Since Hernandez took over at Samaritan, an investigation revealed that its DHS contracts went up 590%. Meanwhile, Samaritan has been troubled by allegations of abuse and misappropriation of tax funds.

Meanwhile on the other side of the country, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority was using money intended for the homeless to buy its employees $165 hiking boots and an antique brass table.

The homeless crisis is a river of money that flows to the politically connected who have no interest in solving it, but a great deal of interest in perpetuating it. Dubious statistics, misleading reports, tax hikes and sweetheart deals are used to mobilize an institutional solution that only worsens the problem.

It’s a scam that runs easily into the billions while destroying lives and communities.

‘Homeless’ is a fake political term that deliberately misstates the problem. The issue is mostly not a lack of housing, but some combination of mental illness and drug use that make it difficult to maintain residential status. There are ordinary people who are genuinely homeless, and the media makes a point of highlighting their stories, but homelessness is mostly not a problem of housing, but of treatment.

While the media tells only one side of the story, it’s the mentally ill and the severe addicts who are the public face of the homeless crisis that the residents of major cities encounter every day. It’s these sights that move them to approve of spending hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars on programs that they believe will remove the horrible sights that they’re seeing from public view.

And that incentivizes the social welfare system and its allied activists to worsen the problem so as to squeeze more money out of taxpayers. Every budget increase means more homeless on the street, more street crime, drug use, and random abuse. Funding the system isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.

The homeless crisis is a billion dollar scam. It isn’t being solved. It’s only getting worse.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

What Anti-Semitism in Europe and the Campus Have in Common

Burkay, an unemployed Muslim Turk, wearing a stained white "Miami Beach" shirt attacked three Jewish people in Vienna, Austria.

It was just another day in a city where Muslim terrorists had once thrown grenades into a synagogue during a Bar Mitzvah killing a woman who threw herself onto the grenade to save the children. The attack had taken place with the complicity of a government notorious for its friendliness to terrorism.

Last year, Austria had 503 anti-Semitic incidents.

That's impressive considering that the country only has around 9,000 Jews. There has been 1 anti-Semitic incident to every 18 Jews in Austria.

That same year, Germany had 1,453 anti-Semitic incidents to approximately 100,000 Jews.

In Bonn, Germany, a Jewish professor from Baltimore was assaulted by a Muslim yelling, “No Jew in Germany!” When the police arrived, they assaulted the professor. There was a protest march. A videotaped attack by a Syrian Muslim refugee in Berlin had led to another protest march and a slap on the wrist for the assailant. 10 Syrians attacked a man wearing a Star of David while screaming anti-Semitic slurs. A Jewish teen was assaulted in a Berlin train station. “I’ll slit your throat, you f***ing Jew.”

One statistical survey listed the number of anti-Semitic incidents in Germany rising by 60% in 2017.

In the UK, there were 1,382 incidents to 263,346 Jews. In Italy, there were 109 incidents to some 28,000 Jews. In the Netherlands, there were 113 incidents to 29,900 Jews.

Austria’s extreme proportion of anti-Semitic incidents to Jews is not so much an outlier as a signifier. The number of anti-Semitic incidents can have an inverse relationship to the Jewish population of a country.

Or of an area in the country.

While the vast majority of British Jews live in Greater London, there were 773 anti-Semitic incidents in London and 261 incidents in Manchester which is home to only 30,000 Jews. Manchester has a proportionately larger Muslim population and a smaller Jewish one. While a smaller Jewish population may make anti-Semitic Islamic attacks more challenging, it can also leave Jews more vulnerable.

These statistics suggest that the combination of a high Muslim population and a small Jewish population are the highest risk factors for anti-Semitic attacks. European countries like France and the UK that have both a large Jewish and large Muslim population may have a lower proportion of overall incidents, but the Jewish population will also experience more personally damaging violent anti-Semitic attacks.

Violent anti-Semitic attacks in France rose by 28% to 92 in 2017. British Jews saw a 25% rise in violent anti-Semitic attacks from 77 to 97. Meanwhile overall incidents in the UK had only increased by 3%.

A larger Jewish population creates more opportunities for violent attacks while smaller Jewish populations require the attackers to operate on the internet or limit themselves to vandalism.

In the United States, anti-Semitic incidents in general increased by 43%, while violent attacks declined by 47%. The total number of anti-Semitic assaults in the United States is listed at 19. That’s in a country whose Jewish population is numbered between 4 and 5 million. Meanwhile the largest European Jewish population centers have seen 4 or 5 times the number of violent assaults with a fraction of the Jewish population.

What accounts for these fundamental differences between the United States and Europe? The Jewish population is less urbanized in the United States than in parts of Europe. (Though much of it is still concentrated in the New York area.) There is, as a result, far less contact between Jewish and Muslim population centers in the United States than there is in the United Kingdom and France.

And, most significantly, there is little covert or overt approval for Muslim anti-Semitic violence.

One place where that is not the case is the college campus. And so anti-Semitic incidents on campuses have actually doubled for two years in a row. The fact that anti-Semitism on campus is increasing faster than in the general society should be deeply troubling to Jewish organizations and the educational system. Yet the problem continues to be ignored for the same reason that it is ignored in Europe.

There were 457 anti-Semitic incidents on school and college campuses in 2017. That would account for over a quarter of the total anti-Semitic incidents in America. And rising anti-Semitic incidents on campus also account for more than a quarter of the 2017 increase in anti-Semitic incidents nationwide.

Just as in Austria, a small percentage of the Jewish population experiences a disproportionate number of anti-Semitic incidents. That’s what the college campus has in common with Hitler’s birthplace.

College campuses are unique because unlike most of the United States, they offer political sanction for anti-Semitism and for anti-Semitic political movements. Extremism thrives on modern campuses. Harassment of Jewish students by hate groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine is often covered up by their campus allies on the left. Debates over whether the attacks on Jewish facilities, cultural events, Holocaust commemorations and individual students are anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist cloud the issue. These are the same conditions under which anti-Semitism in Europe was nightmarishly reborn.

Campuses more closely resemble Europe than they do America. Like European countries, campuses have left-wing governments, are ruled by political correctness and ignore individual rights. When their growing Muslim populations collide with their large Jewish student populations, the outcome much more closely resembles European Jewish life than the way that American Jews expect life to be.

The campus is the canary in the coal mine. It’s where American Jews are beginning to experience a European style of anti-Semitism where the complicity of the authorities in the harassment perpetrated by a growing Muslim population and its left-wing allies leaves Jewish students uniquely vulnerable.

American anti-Semitism is taking off on campus, but it won’t stay there. School and college campuses are the places where a new generation learns what it means to be an adult member of society. The tolerance for campus anti-Semitism won’t remain an aberration. Instead a generation of students will carry those lessons into their workplaces, into the government and the private sector.

The administrators, managers, elected officials, judges and thinkers of tomorrow are being shaped on the campuses of today. Their experience will shape what life will be like for all of us decades from now.

A campus environment that normalizes anti-Semitism will turn life for American Jews into Europe.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Who Really Killed Liberalism?

Think pieces mourning the fall of multiculturalism drift through the fetid pool of the media and its smaller foreign policy pond is afloat with almost as many pieces mourning the multinational order.

In these revisionist histories, the resurgence of racial tribalism among Trump voters in the heartland and explosions of anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe (aided by the ubiquitous vast Russian conspiracy) did in the great multinational and multicultural projects. Brexit and Trump killed the liberal order. Wealthy right-wingers and the Russians had secretly financed a campaign to undermine human progress.

Nonsense.

Trump and Brexit were responses to the collapse of liberalism. The collapse was accelerated when supposedly liberal political movements on both sides of the ocean endorsed two tribalisms. On the European side of the ocean, the EU tossed aside its post-national pose to back Muslim tribalism and its mass migration at the expense of the nation-state. On the American side, the Democrats abandoned even the pretense of believing in equality to fully embrace the pettiness of tribal identity politics.

The authorities were no longer creating a newly equal order, but recreating an old tribal one in which some people were more equal than others. And once that became obvious, their old working-class white constituencies backed Trump in the US and backed Brexit in the UK. Their votes didn’t break a liberal order. Instead, the votes reflected a recognition that liberalism no longer existed; only tribalism did.

The left resents these defections by the white working class, but it was the left that truly defected. The old lefty romance with the working class has left behind only a handful of artifacts, like mementos from an old relationship, a fondness for expensive prole wear, folk music, stories about old coal miners (not the current despised polluters), and occasional forays into trying to live on a few dollars a day. But even two generations ago, the left was trading its working-class costumes for ethnic togs and jewelry.

These days the left romanticizes race the way that it once did class. But class can be shifted, race can’t. It was one thing to demonize capitalists and another to demonize entire races. Class war could be rationalized as an effort to make society fairer by sharing the wealth, but race can’t be shared. No Communist revolution can redistribute skin color or any other fixed attribute of human biology. Tolerance and equality were liberal answers to racism, but they could never be lefty answers.

Instead of redistributing wealth, the left began redistributing racial power. It inveighed against the boogeyman of racial tribalism even as it was busy creating it. To a leftist, racism against white and black people, the national aspirations of a Briton or a Pakistani, a Frenchman or an Algerian, can’t be equated. The moral authority of the oppressor can’t be compared with the moral authority of the oppressed. But what people increasingly saw was the rebirth of racial tribalism and national chauvinism at the hands of the very people who had supposedly been fighting to tear down tribalism and chauvinism.

The white working class found itself on the wrong side of a class and race war. And it fought back.

The badges of mourning for the old liberal order are being flaunted as a talking point by the chattering classes. But these hollow exercises of grief are disingenuous coming as they do from the actual killers.

Race relations in the United States collapsed under Obama. The collapse wasn’t the result of a backlash against Obama’s race. If that were the case, he would never have won two presidential elections. It resulted from policies that he implemented whose purpose was to cause racial division. Unlike liberals, leftists had never believed in the races getting along. They profited from conflict, not coexistence.

Lefties had no problem with racial divisiveness until it began costing them elections. And then they belatedly realized that identity politics and tribal bloc voting were tools that could work both ways.

The European Union had been an old lefty project past its prime. The idea of France, Germany, the UK, and Poland all belonging to the same union had impressed a generation that had seen world wars. A younger left saw the EU as a gang of nation states. A generation of mass migration from the Muslim world would have removed the EU from the pages of history far more thoroughly than Brexit.

The EU had always been meant to be an intermittent step to something bigger and global. Like the UK and the Netherlands, the day would come when the EU would be sucked into the international order. Its bureaucrats would lose their authority to a world bureaucratic authority operating above their heads.

The real objection to Brexit wasn’t that it fatally crippled the EU, but that the blow moves European countries toward the nation-state instead of away from it, to the national instead of the transnational. Even the tensions that led to Brexit were meant to grease the wheels rolling the EU into a more global order. The left isn’t objecting to the exploitation of those tensions, but to who actually exploited them.

The EU was always meant to die. And racial tribalism was meant to define American politics. If the media honestly want to look for the killers, it can always look to the left. It was the left that reduced American and European politics to exercises in vicious tribalism. It was the left that undermined the liberal order, tossed out liberal solutions and now pretends to cry for the liberalism that it killed.

Trump rose from the ashes of a fire that Obama set. The GOP had failed because it was too busy fighting the last war against liberal opponents who still believed in maintaining the order. It didn’t understand that Obama was qualitatively different than Carter or Clinton. He wasn’t just working within the system to transform it, but to destroy it, pitting its elements against each other to break them down.

The only response to a radical willing to burn everything down was an equal willingness to burn.

That is what Trump and Brexit both have in common. They’re creatively destructive responses to the destruction of the liberal order by revolutionary radicals.

When European leaders opened their gates to mass migration from the Muslim world, they made it clear that the European Union was over. The only question was whether Britain would escape its collapse or go down with it. When Obama opened America’s borders, the same message was sent. That’s why building a wall has become has become the definitive symbol of the Trump revival.

Media pundits paint Brexit and Trump’s wall as isolationist responses. But the part that they leave out is that they are isolationist responses to a leftist catastrophe whose purpose is destroying nations. There’s a big difference between closing your door when your neighbor needs help and when your neighbor is shooting at you. The media portrays Trump and Brexit as the former when it’s really the latter.

The left made multiculturalism and the multinational order unviable as a power play. But the play went awry. Instead of the left’s plans moving forward, they’ve been set back. And instead of taking responsibility, the left is blaming everyone else for its own crimes against liberalism.

Trump didn’t break the old order. The left did.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

South Africa Goes Zimbabwe

"Strongman politics are ascendant," Barack Obama warned in South Africa. He spoke passionately about "the politics of fear and resentment" at the Mandela Lecture. He worried that we were entering a world, “where might makes right and politics is a hostile competition between tribes and races and religions.”

While the media used the remarks to attack Trump's meeting with Putin, Obama had shared a stage with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa who had come to power promising to seize land from white farmers. Ramaphosa was the latest in a series of ANC strongmen, including his predecessor, an alleged rapist, beginning with the Communist terrorist whose legacy Obama was commemorating.

President Ramaphosa had vowed early on to seize land from white farmers without compensation. "The expropriation of land without compensation is envisaged as one of the measures that we will use to accelerate redistribution of land to black South Africans,” he had declared. And denied that such racist Communist tactics were unconstitutional. Now he’s moving to modify South Africa’s constitution.

Initially, the ANC, which is partnered with the South African Communist Party, had claimed that seizing land would not violate the law. Now it’s actually going to change the South African constitution.

“It has become pertinently clear that our people want the constitution to be more explicit about expropriation of land without compensation,” President Ramaphosa announced.

When your only rule is mob rule by ANC thugs, it doesn’t really matter what a piece of paper says.

“We will accelerate our land redistribution programme not only to redress a grave historical injustice, but also to bring more producers into the agricultural sector and to make more land available for cultivation,” Ramaphosa claimed in his State of the Nation address.

Zimbabwe had already made great strides in improving agriculture through land seizures.

Land was stolen from the farmers who knew how to work it and handed out to politically connected thugs. Soon the former "bread basket" of Southern Africa was starving. Black groups pleaded with the white farmers to remain. Rural Zimbabwe died. Hyperinflation made the currency worthless. A trillion dollars might not be enough to buy one egg. A former food exporter was forced to rely on food aid.

"If white settlers just took the land from us without paying for it," Mugabe had declared, "we can, in a similar way, just take it from them without paying for it."

Ramaphosa’s rhetoric is an echo of one of Africa’s worst racist strongmen. Land seizures won’t bring South African land into “full use”, as he claims. It will mean productive land falling into the hands of ANC thugs who will be too corrupt, incompetent and greedy to do the hard work of working the land.

South Africa’s agricultural sector will go the way of Zimbabwe.

Cyril Ramaphosa is one of South Africa's richest men and has an estimated net worth of $550 million. How did a socialist student activist make a mint? The answer is an inevitable as it is unsurprising.

South Africa’s agricultural sector has been steadily in decline. Farms used to provide millions of jobs. Now they offer less than a million. Wheat planting has fallen to a third. Cotton to a tenth. A country that once exported wheat, is now importing millions of tons while its agriculture sector fails.

The decline of South Africa’s agriculture has gone hand in hand with what it euphemistically calls its land reforms. White farmers have been murdered or driven off their land. But land seizures, legal and illegal, with compensation or with a hatchet, haven’t made South African agriculture more productive.

Instead South Africa is becoming increasingly dependent on agricultural imports to feed its people.

Like Zimbabwe, South Africa is due to revisit the same implacable economic consequences of land seizures that took the Soviet Union down the road to famine and terror. Toward its end, the USSR, despite possessing territories that had once bulged with rich harvests, had gone deep into debt to buy food from the United States. The African National Congress’ Communist roots are taking South Africa down the same path as its fallen Communist masters. And with the same miserable results.

Comrade Ramaphosa, as Comrade Mandela liked to call him, is less of a strongman, than a weak man. More afraid of thugs like Julius Malema and the greed of his ANC comrades than of dooming his people to hunger. The ANC is populated with thugs who are impatiently waiting to loot South Africa’s corpse. And they’ve grown tired of pretending that they are anything more than a failed state’s Marxist mob.

The constitutional gambit is a desperate attempt to legitimize racist mob violence and ANC corruption. It takes the constant assaults on white farmers and tries to disguise lawlessness under the color of law.

1 white farmer in South Africa has been murdered every 5 days. This ethnic cleansing has been going on with the same regular clockwork as the tributes to Nelson Mandela and his even more murderous wife. The racist violence, the murders, rapes and land seizures, the chants of, “Shoot the Boer” are backed by lies about a shadow white majority somehow still ruling South Africa even after all the years of ANC rule.

The media frequently repeats fake news statistics which claim that white farmers own 70% or more of the country’s farmland. The actual number is less than a quarter. Some of the best land in South Africa is already in black hands. And, just as in Zimbabwe, it hasn’t remedied the agricultural or social problems.

South Africa’s agricultural sector is already on its deathbed. Its corrupt economy is incapable of competing on the world stage. Its exports are not at issue, its ability to feed its own people is. Aggressive land seizures won’t do much more damage to South Africa’s economy, though it will discourage investors and drive out more white farmers, but will bring its society to its knees.

Meanwhile the plight of South Africa’s white farmers continues to be ignored. The ANC genocide has been slowly unfolding for a generation with the complicity of the same leftist leaders who covered up Communist genocides in the Soviet Union, Communist China and Cambodia. But this latest legitimization of land seizures by the ANC will only encourage a further outpouring of racist attacks on white farmers.

Australian Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has urged helping the persecuted white farmers of South Africa receive political asylum. But while every “persecuted” group is fast tracked for asylum, the door still remains shut for a productive population that has been targeted for economic ethnic cleansing.

In his State of the Nation speech, President Ramaphos declared, “We are building a country where a person’s prospects are determined by their own initiative and hard work, and not by the color of their skin, place of birth, gender, language or income of their parents.” Seizing land from people because of the color of their skin and giving it to those who haven’t worked for it is the opposite of that vision.

And yet it’s easy to see why Obama was so comfortable with a politician who could twist the language of equality to justify identity politics theft and the verbiage of tolerance to justify racial oppression.

South Africa, like the Soviet Union and Venezuela, like Cambodia and Cuba, is not just an atrocity, it’s a cautionary tale. Ideology, more than race, connects the scattered strands of the leftist killing fields. To pretend that what happened there cannot happen here would be ignoring the lessons of history.

And a new red famine is growing where the red blood of white farmers flows into the dying earth.






Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.