Articles

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

The Ugly Terror Truth About Jamal Khashoggi

In high school, Jamal Khashoggi had a good friend. His name was Osama bin Laden.

“We were hoping to establish an Islamic state anywhere,” Khashoggi reminisced about their time together in the Muslim Brotherhood. “We believed that the first one would lead to another, and that would have a domino effect which could reverse the history of mankind.”

The friendship endured with Jamal Khashoggi following Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan. Khashoggi credited Adel Batterjee, listed at one time as one of “the world’s foremost terrorist financiers” by the Treasury Department, with bringing him to Afghanistan to report on the fighting.

The media calls Khashoggi a journalist, but his writings from 80s Afghanistan read as Jihadist propaganda with titles like, "Arab Mujahadeen in Afghanistan II: Exemplifies the Unity of Islamic Ummah".

And when Osama bin Laden set up Al Qaeda, he called Khashoggi with the details.

After Afghanistan, Jamal Khashoggi went to work as a media adviser for former Saudi intel boss, Prince Turki bin Faisal, alleged to have links to Al Qaeda. Those allegations came from, among others, Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged twentieth hijacker.

When the other 19 hijackers perpetrated the attacks of September 11, Khashoggi wrote that the Saudis would not “give in” to American “demands” for “unconditional condemnation” and “total cooperation”.

"Saudis tend to link the ugliness of what happened in New York and Washington with what has happened and continues to happen in Palestine. It is time that the United States comes to understand the effect of its foreign policy and the consequences of that policy," he declared.

"A Muslim cannot be happy with the suffering of others. Even if this suffering is that of Americans who neglected the suffering of Palestinians for half a century."

That’s the real Khashoggi, a cynical and manipulative apologist for Islamic terrorism, not the mythical martyred dissident whose disappearance the media has spent the worst part of a week raving about.

Jamal Khashoggi was not a moderate. Some describe him as the leader of the Saudi Muslim Brotherhood. The Islamist network admires Hitler and seeks to impose Islamic law around the world. Nor was he a supporter of freedom of the press. In one of his Al Jazeera appearances, he complained that the Saudi government was allowing some journalists to report positively on Israel.

His final project, DAWN or Democracy for the Arab World Now was meant to aid Islamists. According to Azzam Al-Tamimi, an old Muslim Brotherhood ally aiding Jamal, "The Muslim Brothers and Islamists were the biggest victims of the foiled Arab spring." Al-Tamimi has endorsed suicide bombings.

But unlike Osama bin Laden, Khashoggi did not use the Muslim Brotherhood as a gateway drug to the pure and uncut violence of Al Qaeda or ISIS. He was still betting on a political takeover.

As he recently put it, “Democracy and political Islam go together.”

Khashoggi went on making the case for the Islamic state of the Muslim Brotherhood. He went on making that case even as the Saudis decided that the Brotherhood had become too dangerous.

Like his old friend, Jamal Khashoggi went into exile in a friendly Islamist country. Osama bin Laden found refuge in Pakistan and Khashoggi ended up in Turkey. The Khashoggi family had originated from Turkey. And Turkey was swiftly becoming the leading Sunni Islamist power in the region. Living in Turkey put Khashoggi at the intersection of the Turkish-Qatari backers of the Brotherhood and the Western media.

His disappearance has touched off fury and anger from the Islamist regime that harbored him. And it has also set off an unprecedented firestorm of rage and grief by the American media which adored him.

Media spin describes Khashoggi as a dissident. And he certainly was that. But so was Osama bin Laden.

What Khashoggi wasn’t, was a moderate. No more so than the Muslim Brotherhood. He wasn’t a proponent of human rights, but of Islamic rule. He could be found on Al Jazeera, Qatar’s Jihadist propaganda network, bemoaning Saudi opposition to the Brotherhood and its friendliness to Israel.

"Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman should get rid of his complex against the Muslim Brotherhood and stop treating them as the enemy or a threat to Saudi Arabia," he complained, and urged the Saudis to fight Israel instead.

Jamal Khashoggi’s career of spouting Muslim Brotherhood propaganda for his new Turkish and Qatari masters came to an end in a curious way. Before Khashoggi allegedly entered the Saudi embassy, from which Turkey claims that he disappeared, he told his Turkish fiancé to call Yasin Aktay if he didn’t return.

Before the summer coup of 2016, Turkey was said to have 50,000 political prisoners. Many of them were members of the country’s oppressed Kurdish minority which is deprived of its most basic civil rights. These include even the use of their own language. Doing so can carry a prison sentence.

In that terrible summer, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s Islamic tyrant, finished securing his absolute hold on power with the coup as his Reichstag fire. The alleged coup became a blank check for the mass arrest and torture of countless thousands of political prisoners. Amnesty International estimated that 50,000 had been detained. The UN listed a figure as high as 180,000. They included 300 journalists.

Lawyers described clients being brought to them covered in blood.

Erdogan went after professors, judges, law enforcement, the military and the last remnants of a free press. A Human Rights Watch report documented electric shocks, beatings with truncheons and rubber hoses, and rape by Erdogan’s Islamic thugs. Heads were banged against walls. Men were forced to kneel on burning hot asphalt. Medical reports showed skull fractures, damage to testicles and dehydration.

The media didn’t show any of the hysterical outrage at these crimes that it has over the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. The media cares more about Khashoggi, a former media mouthpiece of the Saudi regime before it turned on his Muslim Brotherhood brothers, than about 300 Turkish reporters.

It’s not hypocrisy, it’s consistency.

Erdogan and Khashoggi are both militant Islamic activists. And their opponents, the victims of Erdogan’s Reichstag fire and the new Saudi king, had fallen afoul of them for being insufficiently militantly Islamist.

The media will always take the side of Islamists over non-Islamists. That’s why it bleeds for Khashoggi.

There was a reason why Jamal Khashoggi felt so comfortable in Turkey, while actual journalists in the country were terrified of being locked up, tortured and disappeared. If that was the fate that befell Khashoggi, it was a commonplace one in Turkey. And it may have been carried out by his own Turkish allies who decided that their Saudi subversive had more value as a false flag martyr than a house guest.

The media’s disproportionate outrage over Khashoggi has nothing to do with human rights. If it did, the media would have been just as outraged at the arrests and torture of tens of thousands in Turkey.

It’s not. And it won’t be.

And the politicians shrilly urging that we punish the Saudis never thought about curtailing arms sales to Turkey. Many of the same politicians were unhappy when President Trump used economic pressure on Erdogan in an effort to free American hostages, like Pastor Andrew Brunson, being held by Turkey.

This is about Islam.

The struggle between Saudi Arabia and the UAE on the one hand, and Turkey, Qatar and Iran on the other, is the next stage of the Arab Spring. And, from Yemen to Turkey, the media has made no secret of being on the Islamist side. Its outrage over Khashoggi, like its claims of a human rights crisis over the Saudi bombings in Yemen, are not journalism, they’re the political spin of the Islamist axis.

The media has reported every claim of victimhood by the Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar’s Al Jazeera propaganda arm, while giving as little attention as possible to the victims of Muslim Brotherhood church bombings. Its coverage of Israel has been little more than terrorist propaganda since Osama was in diapers. Its coverage of the Khashoggi case is every bit as dishonest as its slanted attacks on the Saudi embargo of Qatar, as its propaganda about the wars in Yemen and Libya, and just as devoid of context.

The Khashoggi case demands context.

Before the media and the politicians who listen to it drag the United States into a conflict with Saudi Arabia over a Muslim Brotherhood activist based on the word of an enemy country still holding Americans hostage, we deserve the context.

And we deserve the truth.

The media wants the Saudis to answer questions about Jamal Khashoggi. But maybe the media should be forced to answer why the Washington Post was working with a Muslim Brotherhood propagandist?

The real mystery isn’t Khashoggi’s disappearance. It’s why Republicans aren’t asking those questions.

The media’s relationship with Khashoggi is far more damning than anything the Saudis might have done to him. And the media should be held accountable for its relationship with Osama bin Laden’s old friend.








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.

Saturday, October 13, 2018

When the Google Dream Died

Google is throwing itself a hell of a 20th birthday party. And everyone is bringing the gifts.

While the dot com giant puts up celebratory doodles and shows off its original garage headquarters, Attorney General Sessions had already convened 14 state attorney generals to discuss censorship, privacy issues and antitrust issues involving, among other tech monopolies, the cutesy corporation.

Few meetings between Sessions and AGs well to the left, like California’s Xavier Becerra, would have gone as well as this, but big tech monopolies were already controversial on the left, now they’re also being unfriended by Republicans. There’s a growing consensus that they’re just too big and powerful.

Google’s August search market share in America stood at 84%. That means it defines the internet.

Its secretive algorithms determine what people see when they search. It can unilaterally redefine an issue, such as when it shifted the search results for “Jihad” away from counterterrorist sites to favor Islamist and pro-Islamist media sites. It shapes how political leaders, including President Trump, are seen, and manufactures an ongoing consensus by simply choosing one set of results over another.

(During the election, its search engine provided more positive results for Democrats than Republicans.)

And then there are the constant privacy scandals.

Even as Google is trying to celebrate its anniversary, it’s under fire for automatically signing Gmail users into its Chrome browser (which is a key link in its chain of monopolies meant to lock users into its search engine). After the outcry, Google, as usual, offered a partial retreat.

The scandal is fairly typical of Google which runs on privacy violations and monopolistic abuses. Before Google was rigging search results for political reasons, it was rigging them to favor its products. Search for “mail” and the first result won’t be the post office, it won’t even be mail.com which actually predated Google by a few years, it will be Google’s own Gmail. And that’s how it always works.

Google searches drive users to Google products. And Google products drive users to Google Search.

Its monopolistic vision of the future is of an Internet of Things, a smart home run on Google with eternally watchful smart speakers in every room of your house, processing your questions through Google, and sending every conversation in your house back along its servers to be analyzed by machine learning to better target you with ads on your smart fridge. And then it really will be Google’s world.

Or Amazon’s world.

America’s political and cultural elites already live in one world or the other. But despite the wide range of both companies, many Americans are unhappy with the power and control they wield over their lives.

And so the utopia in which Google is your home, your car, your clothes, your entertainment and your life, may never arrive. The company has more power, but also more enemies, than ever before.

Even as Google aspires to run the world, investing in a variety of moonshot businesses, from self-driving cars (Waymo) to delivering internet by balloon (Loon) through Alphabet, its mothership company, its core business, search, that delivers most of its revenue through ads, is stagnating. While Google dreams of answering your questions before you ask them using machine learning and voice search, it’s doing a terrible job of answering them when you do ask of them. Like all monopolies, its product is mediocre.

Google Search was retuned for mobile search by making every search trending. Search for “Supreme Court”, and Google will deluge you with Kavanaugh hysteria and assorted lefty media background pieces delegitimizing a “Republican” Supreme Court from FDR’s day to modern times.

This isn’t just a monopolistic abuse of power for purely partisan purposes; it’s also a poor product.

Trending stories are friendlier to mobile users who have less time and patience for extended queries. It’s also simpler to deliver inaccurate results that fit the needs of the lowest common denominator user, who types in Supreme Court to see stories about Kavanaugh, than to deliver actual accurate results.

And Google is rigging search results to browbeat sites into orienting entirely toward mobile. Just as it will, before too long, dumb down search even further, to aid its voice search ambitions.

Turning search into a lowest common denominator exercise isn’t about serving users, but about securing Google’s hold on the future. And, in ways both great and petty (like forcibly logging users into its browser), it isn’t shy about herding its user products like sheep into its digital products.

Naked political bias was meant to cover Google’s silicon fundament from its greatest political threat. Republican administrations have offered little threat to the big tech companies. It was largely the left that was actively agitating for breaking them up or limiting their power. And Google focused on the left.

(In last year’s major Google scandal, former Google exec chairman Eric Schmidt allegedly convinced the New America Foundation, a lefty think tank, to purge Open Markets for its criticism of Google.)

And then President Trump showed up.

The famous video of Google’s elites mourning Trump’s victory isn’t just political bias. As the firing of James Damore showed us, lefty political intolerance is baked into Google’s political culture. And anyone at Google who wanted Trump to win has to keep quiet and leak videos. But President Hillary Clinton would have also been really good for Google’s business interests.

Eric Schmidt, who once responded to Google privacy concerns by sneering, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place”, was a close Hillary ally. His “Notes for a 2016 Democratic Campaign” sent to Hillary’s people proposed a $1.5 billion operation that would create “a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them.”

Schmidt was applying the Google ethos to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The unspoken back end of the pitch is that privacy violations can be harnessed for the good of powerful political interests. (The manufactured scandal over Cambridge Analytica’s Facebook scraping never touched the truly epic dot com privacy violators on the left.) Google’s vision of the end of privacy could be very good for President Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. So why regulate it?

That’s what Google elites were really mourning after Election Day.

They weren’t just crying because their lefty political movement lost, but because the vision of a Clinton-Google alliance running the country was lost.

President Trump has warned Google that it can’t expect to abuse its powers and avoid scrutiny. And the leading figures on the Democrat side are less promising for Google than Eric Schmidt’s pal.

Google was ranked as the single biggest employer of Bernie Sanders donors, and its search results were accused of favoring Sanders. As the Washington Post noted, “nine of his top 10 results were rated "very pro" in the analysis”. Google’s current top 10 for Trump, by contrast, includes a bonkers New York Mag conspiracy screed, “What If Trump Has Been a Russian Asset Since 1987?” (In 1988, Bernie Sanders was honeymooning in the USSR, but Google doesn’t think that’s worth including in Bernie’s top 10.)

And while Bernie Sanders has been relentlessly attacking Amazon, a major Google rival, he has been fairly silent about Google. Meanwhile the Washington Post, owned by Amazon’s boss, has been critical of Bernie. But that doesn’t make him a reliable or ideal ally in Google’s war for the future.

Meanwhile Google faces the threat of Trump. A conventional non-populist Republican would have posed little threat to Google’s business interests. Elites love Google because of its shiny technocracy. Schmidt’s pitch to Hillary’s people is seductive to many in the GOP, but alienating to Trump and alien to his insurgent campaign which relied on populist enthusiasm rather than Big Brother level manipulation.

And Trump’s impact on the GOP has shifted it away from the unthinking worship of multinationals.

Google’s vision of the future is multinational, multilateral, multicultural and multi-everything. It’s a borderless world in which we’re no longer defined by nations, but by platforms. Every individual is a terabyte profile swimming among the vast server farm zettabytes in Finland, Singapore, the Dalles in Oregon and Quilicura, Chile, to be run on Google products designed by hipsters the Bay Area and manufacturerd by slave labor in China.

That was Hillary’s vision. That’s not Trump’s vision.

Trump’s economic nationalism is antithetical to everything that Google and the big dot coms stand for. Their borderless world requires the dismantling of nations into united markets governed by global treaties. There’s no room for national interest if Google or Amazon are to run the world.

America isn’t just at war with a nebulous left, but with a leftist vision embraced by the big tech companies that have defined how we talk to each other, what we read and what we know.

Google isn’t just leftist by accident. It’s leftist by design. Its vision is globalist, its scope is endless and the only thing standing in its way, besides its rivals, is the nation-state. America.

The confrontation between Google and Trump encapsulates the clash between the national and the multi-national, workers in red states and elites in blue cities, tradition and technocracy, the individual and the machine. The struggle will decide whether the future belongs to the individual or to Google.












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.

Thursday, October 11, 2018

The Left is All the Rage

“Use the rage,” former Attorney General Eric Holder scream-tweeted. “Get people out to vote and be rid of these people.”

Had President Trump urged his supporters to channel their rage into politics, the quote would have been good for a week of sanctimonious media lectures about his destruction of democratic norms. Not to mention his dangerous divisiveness, the risk of violence and the high price of tea in Outer Mongolia.

But the media has neither the interest nor the inclination to even note Holder’s ‘rage’ tweet. It’s too busy preaching anger, fury and hatred to the same shrieking choir of maddened lefties screaming at the sky, having meltdowns on social media and clawing madly at the doors of the Supreme Court.

"We need to stay angry about Kavanaugh," E.J. Dionne Jr. fulminates in the Washington Post. But that’s nothing compared to the New York Times where the old gray lady is frenziedly distempered all the time.

"Get Angry, and Get Involved," an op-ed screeches. "Tears, Fury or Action: How Do You Express Anger?", an op-ed from a few days before shrills. “Fury Is a Political Weapon And Women Need to Wield It,” a third howls. That’s a lot of anger from the megaphone of the privileged wealthy northeastern left.

There hasn’t been this much peevishness on Martha’s Vineyard since they raised the yacht docking fees.

The New York Times and the Washington Post are echoing Holder’s call for political anger. Rage will solve all of America’s problems. If the Democrats stay angry, they’ll take over the government and be truly ready to unleash their rage on “these people”. Otherwise known as the rest of the country.

Even as the media preaches the virtues of leftist rage, it warns about the threat of Republican anger.

"Brett Kavanaugh's Anger May be Backfiring," the Washington Post had hopefully speculated earlier. "Judge Kavanaugh is One Angry Man," the New York Times spat. "Kavanaugh Borrows From Trump's Playbook on White Male Anger," it threw in.

But there’s a fundamental difference between Kavanaugh’s anger and that of the media left.

Brett Kavanaugh was angry because he had been falsely accused of rape by the media, with no actual evidence. His life was torn apart. His family, as he testified, had been “destroyed”. Democrats demanded that a 53-year-old man account for every detail of his high school and college years.

His accuser was held to zero standards while he was told to disprove an accusation lacking basic essentials like a specific time, place and witnesses. Had a black teen in the ghetto been hit with equally flimsy charges, the left would have gone into a rage tantrum in support of the accused rapist.

But, unlike Brett, the left wasn’t angry because it had been personally abused. Despite the efforts to pass off paid leftist activists as “sexual assault survivors”, the progressive bilious bile was purely political.

Kavanaugh was angry because his life had been destroyed. The left is angry because it wants power.

Leftist political anger inflicted sadistic torments on Brett Kavanaugh for political reasons. And the media pretends that this political anger is somehow more worthy than that the outrage of its victim.

Obama activists, Senate Dems, Soros social justice flunkies, sleazy lawyers and fake news reporters put a decent man through hell so that they could, as Holder tweeted, “use the rage” in the midterm elections.

The media left demanded to know what right Brett Kavanaugh had to be angry. They mocked his pain, ridiculed his suffering with the venal contempt and snarky hatred that now passes for leftist comedy.

But a better question would be what right does the left have to its endless anger?

Eight years of running the country didn’t leave it any more generous toward its opponents, any less hungry for power, or any less tribal, partisan and furious than it had been in 2007. The left isn’t angry because it cares about rape victims. Not when it’s lining up to buy tickets to Bill and Hillary’s latest tour.

It’s angry because, as Holder tweeted, it wants power.

And it’s willing to destroy every political, civic, cultural, social and moral norm to get it. The left doesn’t believe in norms because it doesn’t believe in any compromise or standard. All it has is its will to power.

Some people have the right to win elections (Hillary Clinton) and others (Donald Trump) don’t. Some justices have the right to be confirmed without campaigns of personal destruction (Democrat nominees like Kagan and Sotomayor) and others (Republican nominees like Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh) don’t.

And some people have the right to be angry (New York Times and Washington Post readers) and others (Trump supporters and Front Page Magazine readers) don’t. The entitlement of double standards is essential to the leftist quest for power which is about manufacturing perceived inequality in order to administrate mandates of total inequality. Disparate impact justifies affirmative action. If black workers or students underperform, then poor white workers and students must go to the back of the line.

But if replacing the norms of political discourse with livid tantrums is bad, then it’s bad for everyone.

There’s no way to mandate anger as affirmative action. If you insult, deprive and oppress people, they will become angry. And the only thing you can do is get angry right back or outlaw their anger.

The choleric left is working on the latter. But in its conniption fits, it’s settling for the former.

It deprives people of their rights and it responds to their anger with more anger. In its rage, it wipes out every political and social norm it can manage until its opponents are being hounded out of restaurants, fired from their jobs, assaulted on the street, shot at charity baseball games, smeared as rapists, doxed by reporters and staffers, censored on the internet and eavesdropped on by corrupt federal agencies.

There isn’t a legal or political norm that Obama didn’t violate during his time in office. Reporters were spied on. So were Republicans. The IRS and the FBI were used to target political opponents. A man was sent to jail for making a YouTube video. The DOJ was used to go after folks who mocked Obama.

After eight years of political terror, the Democrats have settled into accusing their political opponents of treason and demanding their imprisonment, everything from intimidation to death threats to attempted murder, and trying to destroy a Supreme Court nominee based on the most baseless allegations.

This is what leftists have done to our political norms. And what enrages them about Kavanaugh is not any feigned concern for our political norms, but that our norms survived their tantrums and dirty tricks.

The media claimed that Brett Kavanaugh should not sit on the Supreme Court by reason of his temperament. That’s rich coming from a deranged political movement getting high on its own fury.

"If you're not angry yet, you should be," a riled New York Times editorial yelps. A forum for readers discusses their struggles “expressing rage” and urges them to turn “anger into action”.

The media used to believe that basing national politics around anger was destructively bad. Now it’s been radicalized enough that it celebrates hate, rancor and rage. As long as it’s leftist rage.

Love can be one-sided. But anger rarely is.

When the media riles up leftist fury, it’s also rousing Republican anger. The Kavanaugh hearings are a clear example of how rage-driven abuses by the left lead to a wrathful reaction on the right.

The Democrats and their media allies furiously preach anger, and their rage is tearing apart America.








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.

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

These Murders Were Brought to You by the Two State Solution

”May Allah send the message I am longing for," Ashraf Walid Suleiman wrote on his Facebook page.

Then he went on to murder two Israelis, tying the hands of Kim Levengrond Yehezkel, a receptionist working toward her law degree, and the mother of a 16 month old baby, and Ziv Hajbi, the father of twin boys, before shooting them at close range.

A 58-year-old woman was left with a gunshot wound in the stomach after she burst in on the Islamic terrorist while he was busy doing Allah’s work.

That was the message from Allah that Ashraf, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority were looking for.

"The Palestinian people everywhere praise the heroic operation," Hamas wrote, gloating over the heroism of tying up a 28-year-old receptionist before killing her. The Palestinian Authority will be paying a salary to Ashraf if he’s captured alive and will be making payments to his family if he’s killed.

At the United Nations, Mahmoud Abbas, the unelected leader of the Palestinian Authority, and the boss of Fatah and the PLO, which control the terrorist entity, called terrorists, “hero martyrs”.

"By Allah, even if we have only a penny left it will only be spent on the families of the Martyrs and the prisoners, and only afterwards will it be spent on the rest of the people,” Abbas had declared in July.

Two days later, Yotam Ovadia, heading home to prepare a romantic dinner for his wife, was stabbed to death.

“The heart breaks at the sound of your little son calling ‘Abba, Abba.’ ('Daddy, Daddy')," his father-in-law said at his funeral.

In September, it was Ari Fuld, an American father of four who moved to Israel, who was stabbed in the back outside a supermarket. Despite his wounds, he managed to chase down his killer, before dying. The family of the killer, Khalil Yusef Ali Jabarin, will receive a monthly salary from the PA.

These murders were paid for by the peace process. They were funded by the supporters of the two state solution. The solution that has solved nothing except how Islamic terrorist groups pay killers to murder fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, at a supermarket, at work or on the way home.

When the Democrats denounce President Trump’s pressure on the PLO, his cuts in foreign aid, his expulsion of the PLO office in Washington D.C., these are the crimes that they are supporting.

The two state solution isn’t peace. The PLO and Hamas have never been at peace with Israel. It’s two Rabbis murdered in January and February. It’s a receptionist wondering until the last moment whether she will make it home to her baby. It’s Hava Roizen, a Russian immigrant from the Soviet Union, who worked as a photographer, hit by a car. And it’s the terror victims of tomorrow. And the day after.

As the leader of the Palestinian Authority has made painfully clear, even the last “penny” given to that terrorist organization will be spent to finance the murder of Jews. Any dollar, pound, euro and yen given to the Palestinian Authority is blood money. It’s not only the terrorists who have blood on their hands.

It’s the supporters of the two state solution whose hands are covered in the blood of its victims.

The proponents of the two state solution are a terror lobby. And this terror lobby claims to be liberal, while funding an Islamic terror state, it claims to be Zionist while defending Islamic terrorists who want to destroy Israel, and it claims to represent true Jewish values while funding the murder of Jews.

"I will bury him at the age of 35. What have I done wrong in my life? He's leaving little children behind, 7-year-old twins, a 4 and a half-year-old boy. What is their mother supposed to tell them?" Ziv Hajbi's mother demanded.

Tell them that American liberal Jews, love the left more than they love decency, morality or other Jews.

That’s why they continue to support the PLO.

A week after the murder of Ari Fuld, Dana Milbank at the Washington Post, wrote, “America’s Jews are watching Israel in horror”. He didn’t mean the horror of an American Jew being buried after a murder funded by their tax dollars. Nor did he mean horror at his own complicity in the crime.

Dana was horrified that Israel was defending itself to even the most limited degree from the killers.

He quoted his ‘Rabbi’, who according to Milbank “comes from Zionist royalty”, fulminating that, “the current government of Israel has turned its back on Zionism.” But by Zionism, Dana and his ‘Rabbi’ don’t mean the simple act of preserving Israel and the lives of people like Kim, Ziv, Ari and Yotam. Instead their idea of Zionism is a “negotiated peace” with the killers whose crimes are made possible by the illusion of negotiations. There has been a generation of negotiations and no end to Islamic terror.

Israel hasn’t turned its back on Zionism. The Jewish enablers of the PLO, of the terrorist killers, have. In an Orwellian twist, they have redefined Zionism to mean the destruction of Israel. Israel’s government, which fights for the Jewish State’s survival, is therefore anti-Zionist, while the lefties who want to destroy Israel are the true Zionists. Up is down. Left is right. And a generation of terror is peace.

“The current government in Israel has, like Esau, sold its birthright,” Milbank quotes his ‘Rabbi’.

Israel has not sold its birthright. Those American Jews who chose terrorists over Israel have.

They have sold out Israel for a chance to be at the next Women’s March, right behind its Farrakhan loving leaders. They sold Israel for an Obama speech, for a cocktail party and for fitting in on the left.

Esau sold his birthright in a moment of hunger. They sold theirs out of cowardice and treachery. They paid for it with lies. Their manicured hands are covered in the blood of Israeli terror victims.

And it still isn’t enough. They never stop shouting for more.

More money for the terrorists. More land for their terror bases. More terrorists freed from prison. And more dead bodies in the cemeteries. More fathers and mothers who never come home to their children.

What can Ziv’s wife tell their children? She can tell them that Dana Milbank, that his ‘Rabbi’, that J Street, that six hundred other useless organizations and six hundred thousand useless individuals, may not believe in G-d, Zionism or that Jews have the same right to defend themselves as any other people.

But they do believe in funding the terrorists who murdered Ziv. They believe in the two state solution, with two growing Islamic terrorist states shooting, bombing and rocketing their way across Israel.

And they believe that the lack of peace is never the fault of the terrorists whom they have funded for a generation, but it is always the fault of the Jews who have yet to sufficiently appease the terrorists.

Abbas and Ashraf swear by Allah. But it isn’t Allah, the figment of a murderous desert warlord’s vanity and greed, that took these lives. It’s the two state solution. It’s the blood money pouring into the PLO.

These murders were brought to you by the two state solution. The next ones will be too.

And those responsible for feeding the blood money into the murder machine will condemn Israel’s “ultranationalist”, “nationalist”, “apartheid” government. They will pound their pulpits, feign tears over Israel’s betrayal of democracy and human rights, and then warn that Israel is about to lose their support.

Netanyahu, "is dissolving America’s bipartisan pro-Israel consensus in favor of an unstable alliance of end-times Christians, orthodox Jews and wealthy conservatives", Milbank threatens.

That would be the bipartisan pro-Israel consensus that turned over a sizable portion of Israel to Islamic terrorists, that has taken the side of the terrorists at every turn and that insists on financing the terrorists.

You’re not pro-Israel if you fund the murder of Israelis. You’re the very definition of anti-Israel.

If that’s a pro-Israel bipartisan consensus, bring on the partisan pro-Israel consensus. The one that doesn’t pay lip service with empty resolutions while funding the murder of Jews, but that ends America’s generation of support for the terrorists that took the lives of Kim, Ziv, Ari and all the others.






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.

Tuesday, October 09, 2018

The War on Columbus is a War on America

Columbus may have outfoxed the Spanish court and his rivals, but he is falling victim to the court of political correctness. The explorer who discovered America has become controversial because the very idea of America has become controversial.

There are counter-historical claims put forward by Muslim and Chinese scholars claiming that they discovered America first. And there are mobs of fake indigenous activists on every campus to whom the old Italian is as much of a villain as the bearded Uncle Sam.

Columbus Day parades are met with protests and some have been minimized or eliminated.

In a number of cities Columbus Day was transformed into Indigenous People's Day, which sounds like a Marxist terrorist group's holiday.

After making a shambles of his efforts at socialized medicine, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed on to Indigenous People's Day. What began in Berkeley, spread to Denver, Pheonix and Seattle, among other cities.

No American state has followed Venezuela's lead in renaming it Día de la Resistencia Indígena, or Day of Indigenous Resistance, which actually is a Marxist terrorist group's holiday, but the whole notion of celebrating the discovery of America has come to be seen as somehow shameful and worst of all, politically incorrect.

The shift from celebrating Columbus' arrival in America to commemorating it as an American tragedy by focusing on the tribes who had settled there earlier, rather than the American settlers, is a profound form of historical revisionism that hacks away at the origins of this country.

The attacks on Columbus Day have less to do with the distant descendants of those tribes, most of whom owe more of their ancestry to the later arrivals made possible by Columbus, than with the agenda of the left.

Anti-Columbus Day protests are mounted by La Raza, whose members, despite their indigenous posturing, are actually mostly descended from Spanish colonists, but who know that most Americans are too confused to rationally frame an objection to a protest by any minority group.

The absurdity is deepened by the linguistic and cultural ties between the Italian Columbus Day marchers and the Latino Anti-Columbus Day protesters with the latter set cynically exploiting white guilt to pretend that being the descendants of Southern European colonists makes them a minority.

If being descended from Southern Europeans makes you a minority, then Columbus, the parade marchers, the Greek restaurant owner nearby and even Rush Limbaugh are all "people of color."

Italian-Americans are the only bulwark against political correctness still keeping Columbus on the calendar, and that has made mayors and governors in cities and states with large Italian-American communities wary of tossing the great explorer completely overboard. But while Ferdinand and Isabella may have brought Columbus back in chains, modern day political correctness is erasing him from history and replacing him with a note reading, "I'm Sorry We Ever Landed Here."

But this is about more than one single 15th century Genoan with a complicated life who was neither a monster nor a saint. It is about whether America really has any right to exist at all. Is there any argument against celebrating Columbus Day, that cannot similarly be applied to the Fourth of July?

If Columbus is to be stricken from the history books in favor of ideological thugs like Malcolm X or Caesar Chavez, then America must soon follow. Columbus' crime is that he enabled European settlement of the continent.

If the settlement of non-Indians in North America is illegitimate, then any national state they created is also illegitimate.

It is easier to hack away at a nation's history by beginning with the lower branches.

Columbus is an easier target than America itself, though the left considers both colonialist vermin. Americans are less likely to protest over the banishment of Columbus to the politically correct gulag  than over the banishing America itself, which was named after another one of those colonialist explorers, Amerigo Vespucci. First they came for Columbus Day and then for the Fourth of July.

The battles being fought over Columbus Day foreshadow the battles to be fought over the Fourth of July. As Columbus Day joins the list of banned holidays in more cities, one day there may not be a Fourth of July, just a day of Native Resistance to remember the atrocities of the colonists with PBS documentaries comparing George Washington to Hitler.

These documentaries already exist, they just haven't gone mainstream. Yet.

We celebrate Columbus Day and the Fourth of July because that is our history. Had the Aztecs, the Mayans or the Iroquois Confederation developed the necessary technology and skills to cross the Atlantic and begin colonizing Europe, the fate of its native inhabitants would have been far uglier. The different perspectives on history often depend on which side you happen to be on.

To Americans, the Alamo is a shining moment of heroism. To the Mexicans who are the heirs of a colonialist empire far more ruthless than anything to be found north of the Rio Grande, the war was a plot to conquer Mexican territory. And neither side is altogether wrong, but choosing which version of history to go by is the difference between being an American or a Mexican.

A nation's mythology, its paragons and heroes, its founding legends and great deeds, are its soul. To replace them with another culture's perspective on its history is to kill that soul.

That is the ultimate goal of political correctness, to kill America's soul. To stick George Washington, Patrick Henry, Jefferson, James Bowie, Paul Revere, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and all the rest on a shelf in a back room somewhere, and replace them with timelier liberal heroes. Move over Washington, Caesar Chavez needs this space. No more American heroes need apply.

Followed of course by no more America.

This is how it begins. And that is how it ends. Nations are not destroyed by atomic bombs or economic catastrophes; they are lost when they lose any reason to go on living. When they no longer have enough pride to go on fighting to survive.

The final note of politically correct lunacy comes from a headline in the Columbus Dispatch about the Columbus Day festival in the city of Columbus, Ohio. "Italian Festival honors controversial explorer with its own Columbus Day parade".

Once the great discover of America, Columbus is now dubbed "controversial" by a newspaper named after him, in a city named after him .And if he is controversial, how can naming a city after him and a newspaper after the city not be equally controversial?

Can the day when USA Today has a headline reading, "Some cities still plan controversial 4th of July celebration of American independence" be far behind?






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.

Monday, October 08, 2018

The Clinton Sexual Predator Behind Murphy Brown's Fake Feminism

The first episode of the Murphy Brown revival featured two guest stars, one who appeared on stage, Hillary Clinton, and one offstage, an old Clinton pal and accused sexual predator, Les Moonves.

The only reason that the Murphy Brown revival, with its doddering cast creakily aiming cheap shots at Trump and fetid kisses at Clinton, exists is former CBS CEO and chairman, Les Moonves. It was a revival that no one asked for, but Moonves has allegedly never been shy about exposing himself to women, forcing them to perform oral sex on him, and spending CBS cash to prop up the Clintons.

Moonves approved the Murphy Brown revival in two days.

“Les made it all happen,” Candice Bergen, who plays Murphy Brown, told the New York Times.

But then new revelations emerged about what the founding member of the "Commission on Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace" had been doing to women for 20 years.

As reports emerged of Moonves’ abuse of women, the feminist heroine went on defending him.

“I think there should be some parameters. I think Les’s behavior was — it was a different time. He was a different man. Is it behavior unbecoming? Yeah. But I go back with CBS, with the first ‘Murphy.’ I have great respect for Les.”

“I would really hate to see Les go,” she said.

The “different time” included 1986, when a television executive alleged that Moonves told her he was going to drive her to lunch, but instead took her to a secluded area, “grabbed my head and he took it all the way down onto his penis and pushed his penis into my mouth.”

That’s what the man who made the iconic feminist show happen was really like. Like Harvey Weinstein and Meryl Streep, there was feminism out front and sexual assault in the back at CBS. And its feminist icons acted as shields for Moonves’ monstrous abuses lulling his victims into a false sense of security.

The special bond between Bill Clinton and Les Moonves that made the two men friends was no mystery. Like Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein, and Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein, they were both predators.

Despite Bergen’s defense, Les went.

And CBS’ investment in the Clintons, one that cost countless untold millions, and its culture of sexual harassment and abuse, goes with him. Murphy Brown is his final Clinton legacy.

Like a negative vortex, the Murphy Brown revival only exists because Hillary Clinton lost an election.

“If Hillary Clinton was elected there’d be no artistic reason for this show to be on the air,” Steve Peterman, a producer on Murphy Brown, admitted.

Spite is not an “artistic” reason. But it’s good enough for the entertainment industry.

And it was good enough for CBS.

The Trump-bashing and Hillary-smooching came naturally to Moonves’ CBS. And the Murphy Brown revival was only the last of Moonves’ many Clinton projects.

In the fall of 2014, CBS began airing Madam Secretary, a series about a blonde female Secretary of State with a Hillaryesque hairdo who battles sexism and ponders political office. A few months later, Hillary announced that she was going to run.

Ironically, Madam Secretary outlived Hillary’s failed political career. (This year, the series flirted with an impeachment plotline, as did fellow CBS series, The Good Fight.)

That wasn’t the first time either.

In 1997, CBS aired A Child's Wish. The made-for-television movie was a dubiously legal infomercial for Bill Clinton’s Family and Medical Leave Act. In the movie, the father of a girl dying of cancer visits Bill Clinton to lobby for the bill. A Child’s Wish was aired because Bill Clinton had lobbied Les Moonves.

Incidents like these made some joke that CBS had come to stand for the, ‘Clinton Broadcasting System’.

Hillary Clinton’s appearance on the Murphy Brown revival may be the final ghost of Moonves’ Clinton pandering. But it’s far from the most lucrative one. Before his exit, Moonves had also reportedly helped Bill Clinton’s The President is Missing earn a lucrative order from CBS’s Showtime.

Moonves and Bill Clinton were old buddies who golfed and skied together. And frequently mixed business with pleasure. When Clinton pals Harry Thomason and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason had a dispute with CBS, Bill Clinton reportedly intervened with Moonves. (The bad blood between Bloodworth and Moonves however lingered, with the former airing allegations against the latter.)

Moonves’ #MeToo moment is the second time that a powerful entertainment industry boss in bed with the Clintons was exposed as a serial sexual predator. And that’s a subject that no one in the industry wants to talk about because of what it says about them and what it says about the Clintons.

While the Murphy Brown revival has a #MeToo episode (in between taking shots at Trump), Candice Bergen finally disavowed Moonves every bit as awkwardly as Meryl Streep disavowed Harvey Weinstein.

Like Harvey Weinstein’s Hollywood, CBS is full of retroactive heroes, like Stephen Colbert, willing to condemn Les Moonves after his fall. But it was Les Moonves who made Colbert’s show happen. “I’m such a fan, personally. I love his show; I love his humor,” Moonves had gushed, touting Colbert as the “perfect succession for David Letterman and the perfect guy for CBS.”

Moonves’ CBS had spent big to give Colbert, Letterman’s old show as his platform. Letterman had come away with his own #MeToo scandal.

But that was just the culture at CBS.

By the time Les Moonves was finally forced out in a #MeToo scandal, CBS had completely shed its heartland past as a family friendly heartland television network. As he departed, it was a hollow machine full of snide sitcoms aimed squarely at urban millennials and soulless dramas at lefty boomers.

"There is a perception out there that we are 'old media,' that we are stuck in the old days of being the network of Edward R. Murrow and 'Murder She Wrote,'" Moonves had sneered back in 2006. "When I took over CBS, Angela Lansbury was the sexiest woman we had on CBS. It's gotten a little better since then, fortunately."

Touched by an Angel predated Moonves’ tenure by a year, Christy by a year, Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman and Walker Texas Ranger by two. Post-1995, CBS’ drama orders began to look very different. The era of the heartland family show was over. In came the urban feminist procedural.

Today’s CBS is Moonves’ creature. Its programming, slick, cynical and hollow, is his legacy. Under Moonves, CBS became as family friendly, as dogmatically leftist, and as creepy as its boss.

And the number of #MeToo scandals that have hit prominent CBS personalities is unprecedented.

Jeff Fager, the former chairman of CBS News and the executive producer of 60 Minutes, was recently forced to resign over sexual harassment allegations. That and sending a text message allegedly warning a reporter, “There are people who lost their jobs trying to harm me.” (That hasn’t stopped 60 Minutes from using its latest episode to take more shots at Brett Kavanaugh.)

Charlie Rose, the co-anchor of CBS This Morning, also fell. Letterman survived his own #MeToo scandal, but has moved on from CBS to bore audiences in person. CBS is coping with a subpoena from the Manhattan DA’s office investigating Moonves. Like Harvey Weinstein, this interest is belated.

CBS and its corrupt culture will survive. Murphy Brown will be praised for its fake feminist posturing as a woman who defended a sexual predator will pretend to take on sexual harassment in the workplace.

But the fall of Moonves marks the end of another Clinton foothold on the entertainment industry. There will be no more Clinton shows, movies or appearances. The lights are out. The soundstages are empty.

The Clintons have left the CBS Black Rock building alongside their third favorite sexual predator.







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.

Thursday, October 04, 2018

Good Intentions, a Little Girl's Murder and the Refugee Road to Hell

St. Andrew's-Wesley United Church is, in its own words, an "affirming church" with "diverse" members and a "progressive" faith. The Vancouver church is also very focused on bringing refugees to Canada.

Despite being in Canada, when Trump won the election, Pastor Dan Chambers compared it to 9/11. In another post, quoting Yoda, he claimed that Americans are “fueled” by “fear of Muslims”.

But it isn’t Americans, or Caucasians, the targets of Chambers’ rant who are protesting these days. It’s the Asian immigrants protesting the murder of one of the daughters of their community by one of Pastor Dan’s Syrian refugees.

“I Wept, I Rise,” Chambers posted after Trump’s victory. But he never had anything to weep about. Those who knew Marrisa Shen do. And they are rising.

The protests at the Vancouver Provincial Criminal Court at the first appearance of Ibrahim Ali, Marrisa’s alleged killer, had already turned ugly with a Muslim woman in a hijab throwing coffee at a protestor.

In 2015, St. Andrew's-Wesley had helped raise the money to bring Ali and his family to Canada.

The 30K/ 30Day project on Bowen Island through St. Andrews- Wesley set out to raise $30,000 to bring Syrian refugee families to Vancouver. They succeeded beyond their wildest expectations. The money they raised paid for Ali’s brother and his family to come to Canada.

And an extra $15,000 was raised to bring Ibrahim Ali and another brother.

“It would mean they could have a family reunion along with family that is in Burnaby,” was the pitch.

At 1 in the morning, last summer, the body of 13-year-old Marrisa Shen was found in Burnaby’s Central Park. The last sight of her was on the security camera of a Tim Horton’s. After over a year of searching, as her photo in a sailor suit looked out from the TV news, posters and flyers, after hundreds of interviews and tips, the case broke wide open.

St. Andrews- Wesley’s gift to Canada was arrested for her murder. That extra $15,000 had paid for a little girl’s life.

Even the worst crimes have a short shelf life. It takes a committed community to see justice done. Marrisa’s murder would never have been solved if Chinese-Canadians hadn’t attended rallies and protests, and kept the pressure on, and as Ibrahim Ali came to court, they were still out there, chanting, “No Bail” and “Where’s Trudeau”, a reference to Canada’s unpopular pro-refugee prime minister.

Banners reading, “Comprehensive Security Screening Now” and “No More Victims, No Bail” were brandished outside the courthouse.

Protesters insisted that Ibrahim Ali hadn’t been properly vetted. Not that vetting does any good.

Muslim migrants have been responsible for numerous assaults on women across Europe. Vetting for terror ties does absolutely nothing to evaluate how migrants from a culture where unaccompanied women and girls are considered fair game will react to being in Berlin, Manchester or Vancouver.

A member of the "social justice committee from the St. James Church" also showed up to claim that the Syrian refugees were "showing compassion to the girl and her family.”

Vancouver’s liberal churches had been very aggressive in sponsoring Syrian refugees. What they lacked in compassion for Canadians, they more than made up for in their love for Muslim migrants.

Pastor Dan Chamber is certainly not slowing down.

"The vetting situation is very good," he insisted. "A situation like this gives one pause to review, and we’ll review, but it’s really out of an act of compassion and care that there is the response to the refugee situation, which is not going to stop, right?”

Not unless Canadian voters make it stop.

RCMP Supt. Donna Richardson insisted that, “by and large, our refugees that come to the country are hard-working citizens that are happy to be in Canada, and I would just hope that we look at this incident for what it is: It’s a one-off situation.”

90% of Syrian refugees are actually unemployed. Whatever they are working hard at, it doesn’t involve earning a living. Canadian schools are struggling with violent assaults by Syrian refugees.

Mohamad Rafia, a Syrian refugee beat his wife with a hockey stick for half an hour and then claimed that he didn’t know it was illegal. “More should have been done to educate him,” his interpreter insisted.

Perhaps with a hockey stick.

Before his arrest, Mohamad had been filmed and touted as all but an “advertisement for Canadian multiculturalism”. The chair of the group that sponsored Mohamad credited the Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches as her inspiration. "We have made a difference to at least one family," she insisted.

And ‘differences’ continue to be made.

When Soleiman Hajj Soleiman, a Syrian refugee, was accused of sexually assaulting six teenage girls at a water park, the River City Refugee Project, which brought him to the country, continued to support him.

Soleiman and the River City Refugee Project won, and the girls, ranging from 13 to 15 years old, were left in tears, when the charges against the Syrian refugee were dropped.

"I'm not really focused on what he's accused of," a refugee group spokesman insisted. "I want to show him that he has a community."

He certainly does. It’s the girls who don’t.

"The church will co-operate with the police, and we are keeping everyone involved in this in mind, hearts and prayers,” Pastor Dan Chambers said of Marrisa Shen’s murder.

Mayor Murray Skeels of Bowen Island was even more explicit. “Our hearts go out to both the families, of the victim and of the accused.”

When you sympathize with both sides, you’re really only sympathizing with the perpetrators.

The Canadian women and girls targeted by Syrian refugees have no community. The community leaders, the political and civic authorities they trusted, are not on their side. They’re on the side of the abusers.

Marrisa Shen’s family is lucky enough to have a community. A community that puts her first. That community has been fighting for her for over a year. And that may be enough to get her justice.

Or it may not.

The Syrian refugee machine has the political, cultural and even much of the religious establishment on its side. Its victims have a few banners and their determination.

It’s not an even fight.

Why does the bleeding heart crowd, which overflows with empathy for every Syrian migrant cadging them for money, have so little empathy for abused and murdered Canadian girls?

Helping Syrian refugees feels good. Caring about their victims doesn’t.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The path that ended with Marrisa’s body lying in a park began with good intentions. It ended in the hell that the left always makes for others.

One of the essential truths of religion is that what feels good isn’t necessarily good, not for you or for anyone else. The religious denominations hollowed out into social justice mockeries by the left are unable to fathom the most basic concept without which no meaningful system of values can exist.

Goodness isn’t to be found in your feelings, but in the pattern of your outcomes.

The refugee industry shrugs off every act of refugee violence, insisting that each one is a random event that does not speak to the rightness of the cause. That has always been the argument of the left. No matter how often its policies lead to tyranny and mass murder, the fault is in the stars, not in them.

"I know that nothing can't be wrong, that feels so right," Elvis once sang.

That’s the anthem of the left. And as another body lies at its feet, it keeps on singing the same old song. The road to hell begins with good intentions, with slogans about social justice, equality and the oppressed. It ends with mountains of corpses. Or just one small body lying after midnight in a park.








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.

Wednesday, October 03, 2018

The Real Handmaid's Tale

The official outfit of the #Resistance used to be a black mask or private parts hats. Lately it’s been the pseudo-Amish outfit of an oversized bonnet and long red dress from The Handmaid’s Tale.

You can find lefty protesters dressed like Amish prison inmates protesting the Kavanaugh hearings by looking firmly at the ground. Alyssa Milano, a has-been child actress, brandished a “Never Kavanaugh, Never Gilead,” sign while dressed in the goofy signature outfit of the Hulu series. Lefties outfitted as, what the show’s costume designer has described as, “walking wombs”, protested Pence’s arrival.

The silly protest style has also been picked up by pro-abortion protesters in Ireland and Argentina.

The Handmaid’s Tale cosplay is, like so much of postmodern feminist outrage, a dystopian fantasy in search of a reality. Its imaginary universe, of the book and the show, in which men are innately predatory, validates their conviction that Brett Kavanaugh must be guilty, because he is a conservative white Christian man. And they’re all rapists. Just like the oppressors of Gilead in The Handmaid’s Tale.

The Handmaid’s Tale is to postmodern feminists what Birth of a Nation was to white nationalists. Both are fantasies by which the powerful justify their oppression by imagining themselves to be powerless.

Wealthy career women pretending that they’re slaves, staring at the ground as an aggressive protest, dressing up like nuns, the Amish or other members of religious communities that they despise, is a costuming that reveals the malicious hypocrisy of the lefty protesters, not of their conservative targets.

But The Handmaid’s Tale, a bad book, has always been tainted with pious hypocrisy and bad faith.

Margaret Atwood, its author, drew inspiration from the events of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, but she projected the treatment of women in Muslim countries on to “fundamentalist Christians” in America instead. The Hulu show picks up on the abuses inflicted by the Islamic State on women in Iraq and Syria, and once again projects the abuses of Islamic theocracies on to Trump, Republicans and Americans.

The Handmaid’s Tale appropriates the suffering of women in Muslim countries and uses it to nurture the inflated sense of victimhood of American feminists without ever acknowledging the source. Not only are American feminists appropriating their suffering, but they’re exploiting it for a political cause that is supportive of the Islamic theocracies that are repressing, imprisoning and killing those women.

Gilead, the imaginary dictatorship that oppresses women, really does exist in Iran and Saudi Arabia. It nearly came into being in Egypt and Tunisia because of the “Arab Spring” perpetrated by the Obama administration and backed by some of the same Washington D.C. career socialites who like to pretend that they’re oppressed Christian concubines on the weekends. The Offred cosplayers can be found at lefty conferences and protests alongside Muslim Brotherhood front group activists wearing hijabs.

But the hijab and the burka is, as every good lefty knows, empowering. As are genital mutilations and honor killings. Mohammed, who raped and enslaved women across the land, was a feminist. And every immigrant from a religion, whose texts prescribe beating women and whose laws legalize the rape of unaccompanied women, is another triumph for diversity, feminism and the right side of history.

The Islamic State’s mass enslavement of women, the forced gender apartheid of the Muslim world, the mass sexual assaults by Muslim migrants in Germany, the Muslim sex grooming gangs in the UK, all vanish to be replaced by safe American Christian male villains who validate the politics of the left.

The original feminists were Christians. Gilead, the caliphate of the Handmaid’s Tale, has no resemblance to any actual Christian society, but its system of concubines, of mandatory clothing for women, has obvious resemblances to Islamic theocracies. Including Iran: whose regime is backed by the left.

If the Handmaid’s Tale protesters were serious about women’s rights, they would be protesting John Kerry’s collusion with the Iranian regime, and Obama’s illegal shipments of billions to that regime, instead of pretending that Mike Pence, who won’t even be alone with a woman who isn’t his wife, wants to stock up on concubines from the ranks of the Washington D.C. chattering classes.

The Handmaid’s Tale takes a real threat to women and allows the political allies of that threat to instead project it elsewhere. That was the function of the book, and it’s the essential function of the Hulu series.

The Handmaid’s Tale, the Hulu show even more than the book, serves to advance modern feminism’s reductionism of women’s rights to abortion. The difference between abortion on demand at any time and any restriction on it is the difference between some European feminist nirvana like Sweden, (with several times the sexual assault rate of the United States), and the Tale’s Gilead.

This reductionism makes it easy to ignore the plight of women in the Muslim world. If the defining issue of women’s rights isn’t the right to own property, to walk the street or to not be beaten, but abortion, then wealthy white feminists are just as potentially oppressed as Iranian or Qatari women are. And when Muslim Brotherhood front groups sign on to the lefty united front, even when it includes abortion, that must mean that a repressive Islamic theocracy is actually more liberal than America.

When the core of women’s rights is abortion, then it’s easy to ignore the actual oppression of women.

The cheap costume theatrics of lefties in bonnets obscures the horrifying mutilation and abuse of women in the real world while allowing the powerful to feel good about their own hypocrisies.

When Margaret Atwood, the Handmaid’s Tale Canadian author, showed up at the prestigious Hay Festival in the UK, a group of women in red dresses and white bonnets followed her around.

There, Atwood suggested that Mike Pence could use her book as an “instruction manual” and that had Hillary Clinton won, they might have said, “look at what we have just avoided’.”

Hillary Clinton had laughed about her tactics in helping a 12-year-old girl’s rapist get away with his crime. And if there’s anyone who belongs in the hierarchy of Gilead, it’s Hillary, a greedy egomaniacal creature who covered for her husband’s abusive appetites for women by going after his victims.

But postmodern feminism is filled with such hypocrisies and absurdities.

While The Handmaid’s Tale has been touted as a work for the #MeToo era, Atwood ended up on the wrong side of the movement when she championed the cause of a male professor accused of sexual assault. “Am I a bad feminist?” Atwood demanded, in an essay which rejected the fundamental premise of #BelieveAllWomen by declaring, “that women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails, including criminal ones. They're not angels, incapable of wrongdoing.”

But Atwood’s most famous work plugs into a poisonous postmodern feminist culture that uses fantasies of victimhood to demonize one gender and sanctify another. #BelieveAllWomen is the flip side of #YesAllMen. Evil is defined by identity. Kavanaugh is a man and a devil. His accuser, obviously an angel.

The costumes, invoking fundamentalist beliefs, are actually fairly apt.

The lefty protesters have no religion, but they have a black and white view of the world, a Manichean clash between angels and devils, between Democrats and Republicans, feminism and masculinity. The political hysteria is redolent of Salem with witch trials, feverish purges and self-righteous terror.

Their mistake was believing that they could wear a costume to criticize someone else. Like a Rorschach inkblot, the costume you wear doesn’t say anything about other people, it says something about you.

The Handmaid’s Tale outfits are the costume of a fundamentalist political sect that stigmatizes and represses an entire gender and wants to remake America into a dystopian society where masculinity is a crime and kangaroo courts punish people with no evidence but the crime of their gender.

If you want to find Gilead, don’t read a book, visit a college campus.






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.

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

Muslim Refugees Perpetrate a New Kristallnacht

In the winter of last year, a dozen Muslims tried firebombing the 163-year-old Gothenburg Synagogue.

The attackers threw firebombs at the house of worship forcing dozens of Jewish teens to take refuge in the cellar while waiting for the police.

The synagogue was already protected by heavy concrete barricades and bulletproof doors. A frail Star of David hangs over the formidable stone building made more so by added barriers and defenses against terrorist attacks. A quarter of the membership fees for the congregants go to cover security costs.

Three years earlier, the Rabbi had received a threat in broken Swedish warning, “Soon will come the time when the Gothenburg synagogue will be destroyed to the ground with you inside, and then you too, you pig, will be killed in the eternal fire.”

The police only caught three of the attackers. All three were refugees, one from Syria and two others claimed to be, “Palestinians”. Instead of being sent to prison for arson, they were only convicted of vandalism. Two had residence permits while the third, a Gazan, had his asylum application denied.

The Muslim racist was supposed to have been deported and banned from returning until 2028. But a Swedish appeals court overturned his deportation because his “basic humanitarian rights” might be threatened by Israel since firebombing a synagogue “could be perceived as a threat to other Jews.”

Unlike Sweden.

"We have freedom of religion here in the country. This may not apply to the right of the Jews to practice their religion in their synagogue," a 2004 article observed. A member of the congregation described reporting an attack to the police only to have them drop it due to "the absence of evidence".

“There are no signs of increasing antisemitism in Sweden, say the police. Was this not how it started in the 1930s. In another country. In another Europe. Do we want to see it again?” the article asked.

Fourteen years later, it’s a fact of life.

Sweden is not the only European country to legalize Muslim synagogue burnings.

Earlier that same year, a German high court ruled that the attempted firebombing of the Bergisch Synagogue in Wuppertal was not anti-Semitic, but a protest against Israel. The three Muslim “Palestinian” attackers had been let off with a slap on the wrist and suspended sentences.

A lower court had ruled that “no anti-Semitic motivation could be identified in the arson committed by the defendants”, instead the Muslim terrorists were trying to draw “attention to the Gaza conflict”.

(And the Nazis were trying to “draw attention” to the death of a Nazi diplomat with Kristallnacht.)

Such decisions finding that hatred of Israel justifies violent attacks are not unusual in European courts.

In 2010, a British judge all but cheered on leftists who had smashed up a factory exporting components to Israel.

Judge George Bathurst-Norman compared Israel to Nazi Germany, and suggested that the leader of the vandals deserved a medal. “You may well think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time,” he had told the jury.

Last year, Saleh Ali, a Syrian Jihadist refugee, made headlines when he was caught on video smashing the windows of a kosher restaurant in Amsterdam. The police were also caught on video allowing him to smash HaCarmel’s windows without interfering.

He was back on the street in two days.

The court convicted him of vandalism and gave him a suspended sentence even though Ali had refused to answer the judge’s questions, and gave an interview in which he had declared that he did not regret his actions. He had also told officers that the attack on the Jewish restaurant was “only the first step”.

The court did not convict Ali of a hate crime. Nor did the authorities charge him with anything more than vandalism. The same vandalism that the police had done nothing to stop while it was happening.

The judge, like a number of lefty politicos in the Netherlands, instead blamed President Trump, but generously suggested that Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem was not the fault of the restaurant.

The HaCarmel restaurant was reportedly on the verge of shutting down after a series of attacks and threats including phone calls shouting, “Allahu Akbar”.

HaCarmel wasn’t located in a Muslim no-go zone. The Heineken Experience and the Van Gogh Museum are less than two miles away. If this is what it’s like in “the new place to be in Amsterdam Old South”, imagine what it’s like in less touristy areas where the police don’t show up at all when you call for help.

In November, it will be the 80th anniversary of Kristallnacht. In those dark days, Nazis smashed up Jewish synagogues and businesses. Like the attempted firebombing of the Bergisch Synagogue (also targeted by the Nazis) and the assault on the HaCarmel restaurant, the Nazi thugs claimed that they were acting in retaliation for Jewish atrocities: the assassination of a gay Nazi diplomat in Paris.

And, like the Nazi thugs, the Muslim thugs throwing firebombs at synagogues and smashing Jewish store windows, are acting with the covert sanction of the authorities, which offer them a slap on the wrist.

Instead of the explosive violence of a single Kristallnacht, a slow-motion Kristallnacht is taking place.

For the 75th anniversary, Berlin stores put plastic stickers on their windows to make them appear cracked. But who needs the illusion of smashed windows when for the 80th you can get the real thing?

A firebomb here and there. An assault or two a week. A store shuts down. And then another. There’s nothing as startling as the original Kristallnacht. No single day of massive violence to shock the conscience of the world. Instead an accumulation of incidents is shuttering Jewish businesses, turning synagogues into medieval fortresses and emptying European cities of their Jewish populations.

Without a single conglomeration of atrocities, there are only statistics, incidents and anecdotes.

You read one and then you move on.

The slow-motion Kristallnacht lacks the obvious endorsement of the authorities enjoyed by the Nazis. But the covert endorsements can be spotted in the actions of the police, prosecutors and judges who ignore crimes, fail to act, and even when acting, do as little as possible, in the rhetoric of judges who find every possible loophole and excuse for the Islamic thugs staging their very own Kristallnacht.

Call it collaboration.

In November, the eightieth anniversary of Kristallnacht will dawn on a Europe where Jews are once targeted and on the run. This time there will be no populist leader to blame and no easy scapegoat. Instead the villains are who they were all along, not the scowling mustachioed men on the posters, but the officials and the bureaucrats who pretend to only be following orders, when they’re really the ones giving them. And the Islamic Kristallnacht doesn’t even require them to do either one. They just have to step aside, keep the borders open and then offer Muhammed an understanding wink in the dock.

Then they will nod and agree that anti-Semitism is a serious problem, but they have it under control. There will be photo ops at a march, an appearance at a synagogue, a condemnation and then more firebombings, murders and smashed windows as the slow-motion Kristallnacht continues.

“Death to the Jews” has a new slogan: “Refugees Welcome.”



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.



Sunday, September 23, 2018

The Diverse Hatreds of the Democrats

On Saturday, the Human Rights Campaign, the country's top gay rights lobby, held its 22nd annual dinner. Top speakers included Joe Biden, who bemoaned the lack of acceptance for gay people, Anne Hathaway, who shrieked, “Let’s tear this world apart and build a better one”, and Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, who declared, “The age of bullies and bigots is not fully behind us”.

Holder would know. He was last seen posing with Louis Farrakhan at Aretha Franklin's funeral. The leader of the Nation of Islam is both a bigot and a bully. He also loathes gay people.

The HRC dinner was taking place at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center concurrently with the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Phoenix Awards.

Holder's boss, Barack Obama, had been caught posing with Farrakhan at a Congressional Black Caucus event. And multiple CBC members have refused to condemn Farrakhan. They include Rep. Danny Davis, who had called Farrakhan an “outstanding human being”. They also include Rep. Maxine Waters.

On Friday, the day before, Rep. Maxine Waters had received the National Leadership Award from the National Newspaper Publishers Association.

The NNPA is an association of black papers that includes Final Call, the paper of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Ford, GM, AT&T, Pfizer, AARP, Comcast, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation act as partners and sponsors of an association that includes a notorious racist and anti-Semitic hate group.

Ford had spent a long time trying to live down its past association with another anti-Semitic paper, The Dearborn Independent, only to end up associated with yet another violently anti-Semitic publication.

The HRC has its own extensive relationship with Ford. It has nothing to say about Ford’s NNPA role.

At the 2018 Black Press conference sponsored by the NNPA, which had previously honored Senator Kamala Harris, the First Place Feature Writing Award went to a Final Call article, “The Feminization of Black Men” which quoted Farrakhan’s claims that drugs were being used to turn black men gay.

"He can make you think you’re a homosexual, he’s feminizing the Black man," the racist leader declared. "You are the guinea lambs of White experimentation."

"We now have feminization and homosexual behaviors being normalized in the Black community," another of the article's experts warned.

The NNPA awarded piece then went on to quote Nation of Islam minister Wesley Muhammad, whose version of the ‘Pot Plot’ warned that that the government and the Jews were using pot to make black men gay.

“It’s the US government and the Synagogue of Satan’s scheme to use manipulated marijuana along with other drugs to de-masculinize and feminize the black male of America," Wesley warned at a mosque. “While it cannot be said that the Pot Plot that we are exposing is a strictly Jewish conspiracy, the Synagogue of Satan is the key player."

Last month, Mary Beth Maxwell was forced to resign as the head of the education arm of the Human Rights Campaign for using the ‘N-word’ twice. But nobody at the Congressional Black Caucus or the NNPA is resigning. Not for the racism, the anti-Semitism or the homophobia.

The NNPA’s tolerance for both shouldn’t be surprising. It’s headed by Ben Chavis, a former NAACP boss and former member of the Nation of Islam, who had tried to steer the NAACP closer to Farrakhan.

At the HRC dinner, Anne Hathaway denounced white and straight privilege, attacking the “myth” that “gayness orbits around straightness, transgender orbits around cisgender, and that all races orbit around whiteness.” The tidy intersectional formula though doesn’t remotely reflect reality.

Identity politics is a coalition of separate identity resentments united only by loathing the construct of an oppressive majority, of whiteness, straightness and whatever othering formula the left is offering this week. Once you get past those common bonds of bigotry, of hating the same people, unity falls apart.

The attendees at the National Newspaper Publishers Association and the Congressional Black Caucus dinner move in the same Democrat orbits, but have very different views of each other. Eric Holder goes from rubbing shoulders with Louis Farrakhan to pontificating for wealthy gay donors at the HRC dinner.

Wells Fargo and Pfizer sponsor both the NNPA and the HRC, funding both celebrations of gayness and of the promotion of conspiracy theories about drug companies, governments and Jews conspiring to make black men gay. It’s not just individuals, but politicians and major corporations on the ‘down-low’, appealing separately to wealthy gay men and the black political allies of an anti-gay hate group.

Nobody speaks about the essential contradictions of a movement that includes both militant denunciations of homophobia at the HRC dinner and the NNPA’s support for Farrakhan’s militant denunciations of homosexuality. The friction between gay nationalism and black nationalism is just another of the many schizophrenic frictions of the Democrats in the dark age of identity politics.

Identity politics nationalism is based on a thousand clashing convictions of the superiority of the group and the inferiority of outsiders. Every identity politics group has its own Farrakhan, the ‘extremist’ who is popular within that group because he preaches its total superiority and the inferiority of the ‘Other’.

No matter how much the left wants to unify pride and identity politics nationalism around hating an artificial idea of straight white men, a multicultural society is one with a multitude of hatreds. The more diverse America becomes, the more diverse the varied hatreds of the rainbow coalition will get.

The left killed liberalism, tolerance and coexistence. What’s waiting in the wings is Farrakhan

Apologists on the left insist that black people love Farrakhan, not because of his bigotry, but because of his message of empowerment. But Farrakhan’s message of ‘empowerment’ is based entirely on his bigotry. The Nation of Islam’s message of black empowerment derives from its theological conviction that black people are a master race while white people (and especially Jews) are genetically evil.

Farrakhan’s message of “empowerment” is the same as Hitler’s. It lays out a vision of a naturally superior people being oppressed by their racial inferiors through trickery and cunning. The NNPA awarded an article whose rhetoric echoes Nazi Germany’s Goebbels almost word for word.

The black empowerment of the Nation of Islam that the left praised is based on racism, dehumanization and power. When Obama, Holder, leaders of the Women’s March, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus embrace Farrakhan, they’re showing their own hate. And the farce of identity politics.

When Eric Holder flirts with black nationalists and gay rights activists, whom does he go home with at night? Democrats running for the White House inevitably head to New York City to meet with Al Sharpton who once ranted about, “Greek homos”, and then condemn homophobia. Maxine Waters plays aunt to the #resistance of white lefties, but hugs Louis Farrakhan and collects an award from a press association that includes Farrakhan’s Final Call, with its claims of a plot to make black men gay.

The Democrats are all on the ‘down-low’, flirting with bigots and then condemning bigotry.

Corporations throw money at both the NNPA and the HRC, and any other diverse dinner they can find. The media could expose the contradictions, but it chooses to ignore principles for political expediency.

The obsessive accusations of bigotry aimed at Republicans are a typical example of projection. The left needs to believe that Republicans are bigots so that its members can pretend that they aren’t. As the devil’s bargain with identity politics takes hold, the accusations of bigotry grow shriller, not because Republicans have become more bigoted, but because the Dems are dealing with more internal bigotry.

The schizoid nature of identity politics is turning the Democrats into bigots who scream about bigotry.

And the more they scream, the more bigoted they are.

Meanwhile the NNPA, an organization that includes a racist paper put out by a racist hate group, is sponsored by Ford, GM, Bill Gates, AT&T, MillerCoors, the AARP, Coca Cola, Macy's, Toyota, VW, Pfizer, Wells Fargo and many other major corporations and organizations. Racism is big business once again.

Major corporations have gotten behind racism and anti-Semitism because the Democrats have.



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.