Tag Archive for: hate

The ‘History of the World Is the Story of Hatred,’ but the History of God Is the Story of Love

/in , , , , , , , /by

Scripture makes clear there are two groups: those who are of the world and those who are not. Put more simply, there are believers, and there are unbelievers. Jesus said in Matthew 6:24, “No one can serve two masters,” and James 4:4 proclaims that “friendship with the world is enmity with God.” And yet, as we walk the same earth, avoiding one another entirely is simply impossible. Not to mention the fact that many of those who are in the world intentionally seek out believers to call us “hateful” and “bigoted,” insisting that we are what’s wrong with the world. On the other side of this, we as believers are called to interact with the world, sharing the goodness and truth of Christ.

When analyzing these things, it seems probable that two issues may arise — particularly for Christians. First, we may become intimidated by the drastic differences between the two groups and the inevitable hatred we will face by being bold in a world that rejects Christ often deters us from trying at all. The second issue that may creep into the lives of believers involves the misunderstanding that we’re free to mix and match philosophies as we please. Regardless of which path we may find ourselves on, I find it beneficial to make the distinction between belief and unbelief undoubtedly clear, and I’m going to do that by dissecting the two different narratives we face.

  1. “The history of the world is a story of hatred.”

I’ve heard it said that “the history of the world is a story of hatred.” Although where I heard this from escapes me, it stands to reason that this is a message worth unpacking. We see examples of Scripture’s call for believers to stay distinct from the world in 1 John 2:15-16, Romans 12:2, 1 John 5:19, John 18:26, and countless other passages. And if Scripture is adamant about keeping the world separate from those of faith in terms of identity and lifestyle, then we must ask ourselves why. Perhaps the shortest answer is because, as previously stated, the world is full of hatred.

First, it hates God. Romans 1 says that all “are without excuse” in terms of God’s existence, for He has made His existence known, and His invisible attributes “have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world.” Yet, this they reject. As verses 21-23 state, “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” Fools whose hearts are darkened and their thinking is futile is quite the picture. But Scripture doesn’t stop there in describing the position of the ungodly.

In addition to hating God, we can see how the world often hates each other. In fact, we can trace the depravity of man all the way back to the Garden of Eden. The moment sin entered the world as written in Genesis 3, Adam and Eve started pointing their fingers at one another. Only a number of chapters later, and we have Cain, an envious brother, murdering Abel. Walk through the rest of the Old Testament, and you see wars, rebellion, adultery, and all kinds of debauchery unfold. Judges 21:25 describes a tremendously dark time in history in which “there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”

But let’s fast forward to modern day, where all around we have people trying to be their own god, hating everything that He deems is good. And spoiler alert: it’s a disaster. Transgenderism is a plague that mutilates healthy bodies and catapults the mind into a series of harmful delusions. Abortion tears apart healthy babies inside their mother’s womb. Pornography and gender politics turn beautiful, God-given blessings such as marriage and sex and discards them as if they mean nothing. But this is what the world wants, right? They don’t want a final authority to answer to. They don’t want their way of life to be “restricted” by some Supreme Being. They want the final say, and I think it goes without saying that it all leads to sin, which ultimately leads to death.

There’s more that could be said, but it feels sufficient to say that from the Garden of Eden until now, the history of the world is a story of hatred, anger, and vanity.

  1. The history of God is the story of love.

The world offers a narrative of hatred, but by divine grace, God offers a narrative of love. Yes, Scripture provides the long and messy history of a world brimming with hatred, but it also offers the even longer and beautiful history that results in a masterful story of love. When we read of the gospel and the good news of eternal life for all who believe, this is not some plan God came up with last minute. On the contrary, this plan of redemption was determined before the foundation of the world.

Before there was anything, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit dwelled in perfect love and unity with one another. God did not need us, but He chose to create us. Even when man used his freewill to rebel against God, He still chose to pursue us. Even when the history of the world unfolded, only further emphasizing it’s hatred of God, He still chose to pursue us. In fact, it’s in realizing how great the hatred of the world is that we are struck by how much greater the love of our God is. Indeed, when Paul wrote that nothing could ever “separate us from the love of God,” we understand just how true that is.

From beginning to end, God remains faithful. Christ’s death sealed the promise of eternal life for those who inherit the Kingdom of heaven, and we are called to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which [we] have been called” (Ephesians 4:1). And being a church guided by a God who is love, this means that, as a body, we imitate that same love to the best of our ability.

We are called to humility, kindness, meekness, generosity, and patience. We’re called to put others above ourselves and center our lives on service. We are called to speak the truth, and to speak it in love. Truly, there’s no greater contrast to the world’s story of hatred than God’s story of love. Just as John concluded his gospel by stating “the world itself could not contain the books that would be written,” perhaps the same is true here. Not all the books in the world would be enough to describe the great, steadfast love of our God.

As we understand these two distinctions, we reflect on the truth that, like oil and water, truth and falsehood simply cannot mix. But for the Christian, acknowledging this isn’t enough. We ought to actively remember that we’re the ones who understand this picture clearly. As such, we will continue to face persecution and slander. We will continue to be deemed “hateful” and “bigoted.” After all, as Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw once said, “Hatred is the coward’s revenge for being intimidated.” When we promote God’s truth, the world responds in anger.

But within the chapters of John 15 and 17, Jesus makes clear that apart from Him, we can do nothing. He stated that we are not of the world, just as He was not of the world. Our roots must be firmly planted in Christ and His story, not our story. Our love must be rooted in Christ, not ourselves. The world will always hate Christianity because their love is of self, but we have the opportunity every day to be a light and show them another way ­ — the only Way.

C.S. Lewis mapped out the distinction well when he said, “Look for Christ and you’ll get Him, and with Him, everything else thrown in. Look for yourself and you’ll get only hatred, loneliness, despair, and ruin.”

I can’t help but wonder, which story will you be a part of?

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

To Hate a Jew: How Jew-hatred serves as one of the key bonds in the Leftist-Hamas romance.

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Editor’s note: Ever since Hamas’ Oct 7th savage terror attack against Israel, we have observed – in horror – how the Left has risen up in rabid support of the terror group and engaged in ferocious hatred of Jewish people in general – and of the state of Israel in particular. The examples have been unending: Harvard student organizations rallied around Hamas, Black Lives Matter endorsed Hamas’ murder of Israeli babies, and leftist groups and individuals everywhere have vociferously supported the Hamas massacres.

And just recently, the Left has even engaged in denouncing Israel for rescuing its hostages.

This is all nothing new, of course. Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov has documented the Left’s long traditional dance with Islamic jihad and Jew-Hate in his critically-acclaimed and best-selling book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror. Now, because of the Left’s current passionate alliance with Hamas, our editors have deemed it vital to run a chapter from Jamie’s book, titled “To Hate a Jew.” The chapter explores how and why anti-Semitism serves as one of the core bonds between the Left and Islam in the Unholy Alliance.

Make sure to read the eye-opening chapter below and to order United in Hate, which reveals the shocking truth of what really lies behind the Left’s dark love affair with Hamas’ bloodthirsty jihad against Israelis.

Chapter 13: To Hate a Jew

“Behind the doctrine of atheistic materialism was a Jew; behind the doctrine of animalistic sexuality was a Jew; and behind the destruction of the family and the shattering of sacred relationships in society…was a Jew.” —Sayyid Qutb

The hatred of Jews serves as a central underpinning to the Islamist death cult—as it does to most death cults. Like its ideological cousins, fascism and communism, Islamism wages war against Jews in its effort to secure its own survival. Totalist ideologies detest modernity, individual freedom, and any value placed on individual human life—notions with which Jews are strongly identified. Jews also personify the enduring struggle to survive, rather than the impulse to destroy and perish. For Islamists—as for leftist believers, as delineated in the believer’s diagnosis and documented throughout Part II—such a disposition is tantamount to a declaration of war.

In Islamists’ eyes, not only are Jews guilty because, as a people, they are synonymous with liberty and the veneration of life on earth; they are also guilty for being the creators and inhabitants of the state of Israel—the very existence of which is an affront to Islam’s quest for dominion over all the lands of the Middle East and, ultimately, the world. The fact that Israel is an ally of the United States only magnifies the “crimes” of the Jews. Consequently, the Jewish state serves as a nearby stand‐in for the West in general, and for America in particular. As Kenneth Timmerman notes, “much of today’s anti‐Semitism, while aimed at Jews, stems from a belief system that equally rejects America and indeed Western civilization as a whole.”[i]

As will be demonstrated in this chapter, Islamist Jew hatred is, first and foremost, rooted in Islamic theology and culture. At the same time, it is important to stress that, as shown in chapter nine, since Islamism is partly an outgrowth of the European ideological virus that spawned communism and fascism, so too is its Jew hatred an outgrowth of those two death cults.

Many Muslim Arabs adored Hitler and were enchanted with his Final Solution. As mentioned in chapter nine, the Muslim Brotherhood’s founder, Hassan al‐Banna, was a devout admirer, and the Nazis helped create the organization as a weapon against the British in the Middle East.[ii] By the end of World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood had a half million Arab Nazis as members.[iii] The grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al‐Husseini, met with Hitler on November 28, 1941, to request German assistance in engendering a Middle Eastern Final Solution, and he offered to form an Arab army to help carry it out.[iv] Al‐Husseini became the Arabic voice of Nazi Germany in all of its broadcasts to the Arab world, exhorting Muslims to murder Jews.[v] Hitler’s Palestinian disciple understood, however, that direct assistance could be provided only after the Führer had finished the job in Europe— an objective the Nazi dictator never achieved. Yasser Arafat was one of al‐Husseini’s most admiring disciples, even claiming that he was his nephew.[vi]

Sayyid Qutb, meanwhile, helped frame the Jew hatred of the Islamic world in the modern era. For Qutb, the Jews represented the “eternal enemy” of Islam. Behind every evil, in Qutb’s view, were the Jews: “Behind the doctrine of atheistic materialism was a Jew; behind the doctrine of animalistic sexuality was a Jew; and behind the destruction of the family and the shattering of sacred relationships in society…was a Jew.”[vii]

Al‐Qaeda and all other Islamist terrorist organizations have emerged, clearly, from traditional political Islam. But they also have evolved from the Nazi‐Arab World War II generation, through the connection with the Muslim Brotherhood, which remains the backbone of al‐Qaeda and the parent of nearly every other Arab terrorist group.[viii] As Timmerman has noted, “If today’s Muslim anti‐Semitism is like a tree with many branches, its roots feed directly off of Hitler’s Third Reich.”[ix] Mein Kampf was and still is circulated widely in the Muslim world. It is, for instance, a bestseller among Palestinians and it has also recently been on the bestseller lists in Turkey.[x]

Just as it has Nazi‐Fascist roots, so too the Islamist death cult has communist origins, as we saw in chapter nine, and the communist death cult was also rife with Jew hatred. The Soviet regime viciously persecuted its Jews, and newly discovered evidence indicates that Stalin was planning a second Great Terror, his own version of the Holocaust, to rid the Soviet Union of its remaining Jews.[xi] Shortly before his death he authorized the construction of four large death camps for this purpose in Kazakhstan, Siberia, and the Arctic north.[xii]

The Soviet regime consistently used its power and influence to channel Islamism’s Jew hatred into a ferocious anti‐Americanism.[xiii] Former Romanian intelligence general Mihai Pacepa has revealed how the Soviet‐bloc espionage community’s main objective was to transform Yasser Arafat’s war against Israel and its main supporter, the United States, into a central doctrine throughout the whole Islamic world. Pacepa writes:

According to KGB theorists, the Islamic world was a petri dish in which we    could nurture a virulent strain of America‐hate. Islamic cultures had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch. Terrorism and violence against America would flow naturally from their religious fervor. We had only to keep repeating, over and over, that the United States was a “Zionist country” bankrolled by rich Jews. Islam was obsessed with preventing the infidel’s occupation of its territory, and it would be highly receptive to our dogma that American imperialism wanted to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom.[xiv]

This explains why the Soviet bloc flooded the Islamic world with Arabic translations of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, along with other “documentary” materials, “proving” that Jewish money governed the Zionist United States, whose aim was to extend its domination over the rest of the world.[xv]

Soviet communism, therefore, fueled the energy and hate with which Islamism, its ideological cousin, would fight modern liberalism and freedom. The totalitarian virus was simply transported into a new theater. As Pacepa powerfully observes, “the hijacked airplane was launched into the world of contemporary terrorism by the KGB and its puppet Yasser Arafat, and it is significant that this became the weapon of choice for September 11, 2001.”[xvi]

Islamism’s Jew hatred also has numerous other sources. One significant ingredient is the humiliation phenomenon delineated in chapter eleven. Muslim Arabs experienced excruciating shame in losing three wars to the Israelis (1948, 1967, 1973) and in observing the success and prosperity of the Jewish civilization right in their midst. For generation after generation, Arabs in the Middle East have known nothing but backwardness, poverty, dictatorship, and cultural impotence. Yet they have had to witness a comparatively small number of European and American Jews migrate to a tiny stretch of desert a half century ago, to join the Jews already living there and, within a single generation, build the most powerful economic and industrial nation in the entire Middle East. This is an agonizing dose of reality for many Arabs, causing them to try to destroy the reminder of their own impotence—i.e., the Jews—rather than to acknowledge the flaws of their own civilization and admit that they might profit by learning something from the hated “infidels.” In the Arab world, Israel’s creation is Nakba—the Catastrophe.

But despite the Nazi and communist reinforcement, Islamist Jew hatred is primarily founded in Islamic sources, which will always take precedence for Muslims. And one of the key problems is that Muslims do not see Jews as merely their enemies; they see them as the enemies of God. The Koran attributes many negative characteristics to Jews, especially falsehood and distortion,[xvii] and it teaches that Allah, as well as David and Jesus, has cursed the Jews.[xviii] In fact, Allah was so disgusted with Jews that he transformed them into apes and pigs.[xix] The hadiths also contain many anti‐Jewish teachings. A hadith collected in Mishkat Al‐ Messabih, for instance, says, “When judgment day arrives, Allah will give every Muslim a Jew or Christian to kill so that the Muslim will not enter into hell fire.”[xx]

It is important to point out, of course, that there are some Islamic leaders, such as Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, director of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic community, who seek to abolish Jew hatred within Islam.[xxi] But they have a great struggle ahead of them.

The Prophet Muhammad taught Jew hatred explicitly by example. He commanded his followers: “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.”[xxii] In his later years, Muhammad himself persecuted Jews and sanctioned the killing of the males of large Jewish tribes, notably in the brutal massacre of the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza. Muhammad ratified a judgment that saw as many as nine hundred men from this tribe beheaded and their decapitated corpses buried in a pit while he looked on. The Muslims then sold most of the murdered men’s wives and children into slavery, while distributing some of them as gifts among Muhammad’s followers (Muhammad took one Qurayza woman, Rayhana, for his own pleasure).[xxiii] In his 1895 biography of Muhammad, which relied entirely on the original Muslim sources, the scholar Sir William Muir observed: “The massacre of the Banu Coreiza was a barbarous deed which cannot be justified by any reason of political necessity…. [T]he indiscriminate slaughter of the whole tribe cannot be recognized otherwise than as an act of monstrous cruelty…”[xxiv]

These crimes by Muhammad himself serve as a foundation for Muslim hatred and persecution of Jews throughout history. In AD 807, for instance, Harun al‐Rashid, the caliph of Baghdad, enforced Muhammad’s directive to humiliate Jews by mandating that they wear a yellow belt and dunce cap. If they failed to do so, they faced execution. In different periods of dhimmitude, Jews were also forced to wear the image of an ape on their clothes and to nail onto their front door a board bearing the sign of a monkey.[xxv] This was the inspiration for the yellow star later used by the Nazis.[xxvi]

We get a clear picture of how Islam’s ancient hatred of the Jews has fused with present‐day resentments. Israel, like the United States, has become a symbol of modernity, freedom, corporate capitalism, and globalization—all things that are reviled by Muslim fundamentalists. And it is no coincidence that the Left despises modernity, freedom, corporate capitalism, and globalization as well. Jew hatred, therefore, serves as an indispensable element in the leftist‐Islamist romance.

AUTHOR

Jamie Glazov

Notes:

[i] Kenneth R. Timmerman, Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America (New York: Crown Forum, 2003), p.2.

[ii] Loftus, “The Muslim Brotherhood.”

[iii] DiscovertheNetworks.org, Hasan al-Banna profile.

[iv] Robert Spencer, “Islamo-Fascism Denial.”

[v] For an excellent account of the al-Husseini story, see Chuck Morse, The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini (Lincoln, Neb.: iUniverse, 2003).

[vi] See Kenneth Timmerman’s comments in Jamie Glazov, “Symposium: Islamic Anti-Semitism,” FrontPageMagazine.com, October 31, 2003.

[vii] Quoted in Timmerman, Preachers of Hate, p.122.

[viii] Loftus, “The Muslim Brotherhood.”

[ix] Ibid., p.104.

[x] David Pryce-Jones, “Their Kampf: Hitler’s Book in Arab Hands,” National Review, July 29, 2002.

[xi] Scholars have comprehensively documented the brutal realities of Soviet Jew hatred. See Elie Wiesel, The Jews of Silence: A Personal Report on Soviet Jewry, trans. Neal Kozodoy (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966); Theodore Freedman, ed., Anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union: Its Roots and Consequences (New York: Freedom Library Press of the New York Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, 1984); and Ronald I. Rubin, ed., The Unredeemed: Anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union (Chicago: Quadrangle, 1968).

[xii] Jonathan Brent and Vladimir P. Naumov, Stalin’s Last Crime: The Plot against the Jewish Doctors, 1948–1953 (New York: HarperCollins, 2003).

[xiii] For a comprehensive account of the KGB’s propaganda activity in the Middle East and its influence on Islamic anti-Americanism, see Andrew and Mitrokhin, The World Was Going Our Way.

[xiv] Ion Mihai Pacepa’s comment in “Symposium: The Terror War: How We Can Win,” Frontpagemag.com, November 15, 2004.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] Suras 3:71 and 4:46.

[xviii] Suras 2:61–58 and 5:78–82.

[xix] Suras 5:60–65, 2:65, and 7:166.

[xx] Mishkat Al-Messabih, vol. 2, no. 5,552.

[xxi] Jamie Glazov, “The Anti-Terror, Pro-Israel Sheikh,” Frontpagemag.com, September 12, 2005.

[xxii] Muhammad, as quoted in Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, translated by A. Guillaume as The Life of Muhammad (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p.369.

[xxiii] Andrew G. Bostom, “Muhammad, the Qurayza Massacre, and PBS,” Frontpagemag.com, December 20, 2002.

[xxiv] Ibid.

[xxv] Christians were forced to wear the image of a pig. See Bat Ye’or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam, trans. David Maisel, Paul Fenton, and David Littman (Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985), pp. 186–187, 420, and 440.

[xxvi] Timmerman, Preachers of Hate, p.99.

EDITORS NOTE: This Glazov Gang column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

If You Love American You Will Hate These Videos

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

WAKE UP!

Hamas is attacking America. Ripping down our flag and walking on it. This is classic jihad hate for America and we are watching it in real time.

It will get worse this summer.

This video should infuriate you. We the people must fight back — Lawfully, Legally and Vigorously.

WATCH: Hamas desecrates the American flag at New York University.

And watch here:

Get it? Got it? Good!

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This The United West video and commentary is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why the Left Hates Martin Luther King

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Leftists hate MLK because they care more about color of skin than content of character (Kendall Qualls)

“The Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) holiday ironically honors values despised by many on the left. King’s intellectual and moral challenge to judge people by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin, is in direct opposition to leftists’ narrative that judging people’s value begins with their skin color.

Keep in mind that many on the left never agreed with MLK’s nonviolent movement of protest in the 1960s. Stokely Carmichael, the originator of the black nationalist movement (Black Power) and the Black Panthers, once stated, “When you talk of Black power, you talk of building a movement that will smash everything Western civilization has created.” Many followers of this movement enrolled in colleges in the 1970s, earned doctoral degrees in African studies (or grievance studies), and now lead or have major influence in local, state, and federal agencies, academia, the arts, and media.

While the radicals were developing leadership roles, the majority of Americans accepted MLK’s vision of judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. Hence, many people would use the phrase, “I don’t see color” to confirm their buy-in of that vision. In fact, based on a Gallup poll, nearly 70 percent of Americans, black and white, rated race relations either good or very good back in 2002.”

Today’s Race Extremists Are Destroying Martin Luther King Jr.’s Legacy

Martin Luther King, Jr. would be shocked by the regression in America since he led the civil rights movement.

By: Scott Powell, The Federalist, January 15, 2024:l

Why do we celebrate a holiday honoring a man who was jailed 29 times and ultimately assassinated? What lessons can we learn from Martin Luther King, Jr. and from American society, much of which seems to have forgotten the contributions that led to bestowing on him a national holiday?

King, a powerful pastor and speaker, was both the catalyst for and the central figure in the civil rights movement that extended from 1955 to 1968. MLK’s sermons, speeches, and writings portray a man with an unusually discerning mind grounded in timeless truths. MLK was all about non-violent action to bring about racial and social healing through public debate and protest.

Hard to come to grips with today is how the power, healing, and truth of his message can be overshadowed by today’s divisive and demoralizing philosophies of critical race theory (CRT) and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). These divide rather than unite society. MLK stressed the importance of bringing people together through constructive dialogue and seeing all people as made in God’s image. In contrast, those who have recently claimed to hold the torch of civil rights, such as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, generally do so through militant action, malicious language, and confrontation.

The extremist identity politics movement in the United States is largely the progeny of BLM, an organization founded by Patrisse Cullors and Alicia Garza, who self-identify as Marxists. For those who relate identity politics to progress, a gnawing question still haunts: What good ever came out of Marxism? While some newcomers might idealistically presuppose their cause is about a socialist utopia, Marxist rule in practice has a sad history of delivering poverty, corruption, and mass death across diverse cultures.

Were it possible to resurrect and transport King into the present, he would be shocked by the regression that has taken place in America in the three generations since he led the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. He would reject the eclipse of the group, sexual, and ethnic identity paradigm over the individual merit and character-based approach for acceptance and advancement, whether in school admission or hiring and promotion in the workplace. King would condemn critical race theory because it perpetuates negative racial stereotypes against white people.

King recognized that the self-evident truth in the Declaration of Independence “that all men are created equal…with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” wasn’t realized in 1776, nor when the United Constitution was ratified some 14 years later. Nor was Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” proposition “that all men are created equal” fulfilled through the Civil War emancipation of slaves.

In King’s most famous “I have a dream” speech, delivered from the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. on August 28, 1963, he called America to rise up and fulfill its spiritual destiny. To the self-evident truth of all people having equal value, King added an equally timeless truth, that people “should not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

One of the timeless truths King referred to on numerous occasions was Paul’s letter to the Romans, in which he says, “Do not conform to the pattern of the world, but be transformed in the renewing of your mind.” King also drew on Thomas Jefferson’s statement, “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” He warned in a sermon as early as 1954, recorded in his book, Strength to Love, that “If Americans permit thought-control, business-control and freedom-control to continue, we shall surely move within the shadows of fascism.”

Seventy years later, we have moved way beyond shadows and now live in a matrix of fascism and communism that operate throughout most institutions within the United States under the camouflage of being woke, enlightened, and inclusive. Few American leaders have been as clearheaded about the dangers of groupthink as King. He reminds us of Emerson’s words: “Whoso would be a man must be a non-conformist.”

Drawing on Apostle Paul’s teachings, King implored that, “Any Christian who blindly accepts the opinions of the majority and in fear and timidity follows a path of expediency and social approval is a mental and spiritual slave.” King also commended those who went against the crowd, reminding us that, “The trailblazers in human, academic, scientific, and religious freedom have always been nonconformists…[so] in any cause that concerns the progress of mankind, put your faith in the nonconformist!”

King’s lesser-known speeches and sermons also provide prescient insight into our times. On numerous occasions, he quoted scripture about the need to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves,” arguing for people to adopt a tough mind and a tender heart. He expressed concern that the “prevalent tendency toward softmindedness is found in man’s unbelievable gullibility.” “Few people have the toughness of mind to judge critically and to discern the truth from the false, the fact from the fiction,” he noted.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden’s Rhetoric is a Threat to the Republic

/in , , , , , , , , /by

This isn’t just pandering to the base.

The only good thing about this speech is that it didn’t have a color scheme out of V for Vendetta and didn’t feature Marines in the background. Whoever runs these things at least learned from that attempt at looking like Biden was about to declare martial law, suspend habeas corpus and make everyone read Gender Queer and How To Be An Anti-Racist at gunpoint in a gulag.

The bad news is no one cared about that speech except conservatives. They care even less about this one.

With the countdown underway, voters have made it clear that they care about the economy and crime. Anyone who finds the “threat to democracy” routine persuasive is already a solid blue voter and ActBlue donor who probably showed up for at least one D.C. protest.

This isn’t just pandering to the base, it’s pandering to the Elizabeth Warren base.

Biden’s call to “vote knowing what’s at stake and not just the policy of the moment, but institutions that have held us together as we’ve sought a more perfect union are also at stake” is an admission that his faction has lost the policy argument and doesn’t have anything else to work with.

While the delivery is laughable, the premise isn’t. Biden’s speeches may not interest voters, but they continue to push the totalitarian message that “democracy” is embodied by Democrats and threatened by Republicans, that if Dems fail to win, then the result will be the end of America.

That kind of rhetoric is typical, but under Obama and Biden, it’s been backed up by arrests, investigations, surveillance, raids, imprisonment, censorship and the whole banana republic gamut.

The same speech delivered by the leader of a free country and say Vladimir Putin or Xi sound very different because they have really different implications. Biden, once again declaring that the opposition is a collection of “dark force” that “thirst for power” and will destroy democracy is election rhetoric, but it’s also become an actionable item for the DOJ, the FBI and Big Tech firms.

Biden’s rhetoric is a threat to the republic, not because words are scary, but because his allies have shown that they employ such rhetoric as cover for imposing totalitarian realities.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

McCarthy, GOP Poised To Pounce In ’23. Here’s Their ‘Number One Promise’

ANTONI: Here Are Five Prime Examples Of Biden Gaslighting Conservatives

Biden Blames Republicans For Attack On Paul Pelosi

Dem Pollster Claims Party Doesn’t Acknowledge People’s ‘Legitimate Concerns’

EDITORTS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Italy: Populist Brothers of Italy Win Sweeping Majority, Smeared by Globalists as ‘Fascist’

/in , , , , , , , /by

Italian voters have spoken: enough of globalist chaos; environmental lunacy creating a bad economy built on an unrealistic green agenda; open-door, unvetted immigration; rigid Covid mandates; and diminishing personal freedom. Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy coalition party has captured a sweeping majority in Italy. It’s being widely smeared as the most right-wing government since Mussolini. Other coalition members include Matteo Salvini’s League, noted for its opposition to an open-door immigration policy, and Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia.

Here’s what Italy can immediately expect, based on the stated policies of the incoming government:

A review of rules on public spending and economic governance. Meloni has stated that her focus will be on “investments to boost Italy’s chronically weak economic growth but pledged responsibility in managing its debt-laden public accounts.” And as a fiscal conservative, she added: “I am very cautious.” She has also criticized the EU for its lack of foresight in pursuit of a green economy at any cost, accusing the EU of failing “to craft policies that would ensure available, affordable energy supplies. Sky-high energy prices, she declares, “have forced businesses and families down to their knees.”

The Brothers of Italy party is being attacked as far-right,  “anti democratic” and a threat to personal freedoms, but the truth is that globalist governments have themselves proven to be the worst threats to democracy and personal freedom, while accusing the Right of everything they do. It is globalists today who are the exponents of the socialist ideology and who are willing to use violence to cancel our freedoms (especially the freedom of expression) and drive capitalist economies into the ground.

The Leftist Atlantic, in an article titled The Return of Fascism in Italy, asserted….

Meloni would also represent continuity with Italy’s darkest episode: the interwar dictatorship of Benito Mussolini.

Ridiculous. Just as Hitler was socialist (the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party) yet is frequently referenced as “right wing,” Mussolini was also a socialist, called “right wing” when both were violent socialist Leftists.

Meloni refused to join Mario Draghi’s national unity government in February 2021, opposing his “tough coronavirus measures, notably the so-called Green Pass requiring workers to be vaccinated.” Meloni is also tough on open-door migration. Italy has been overwhelmed by North African Muslims illegally swarming in, and Draghi was lukewarm on the issue. AFP stated that Meloni’s party’s “anti-immigration positions and the protection of Italy from ‘Islamization,’” and also quoted Meloni as saying: “there is no room for nostalgic attitudes of fascism, for hypotheses of racism and anti-Semitism.”

The Associated Press describes Meloni as having a message that blends Christianity, motherhood and patriotism, while the Qatar-owned Al-Jazeera says that her party “calls for the defence and promotion of Europe’s “Judeo-Christian” and classical roots.” Meloni has also been criticized by the Left for being anti-abortion.

A government that supports Judeo-Christian principles, rejects unvetted illegal migration and rigid COVID mandates, and is Eurosceptic sounds like a government on the right track. No wonder the Left is going heavy on the “far-right” and “fascist” smears.

Globalist EU leaders are now worried about a shift in the EU’s balance of power, as they should be, and about a Meloni alliance with Hungary. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has already congratulated Meloni on a “well deserved” victory.

AUTHOR

CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

RELATED ARTICLE: Left Trying to Seize Control of DHS Inspector General’s Office

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

WATCH: Canada’s House of Commons Erupts after Trudeau Accuses Jewish Conservatives of Supporting Swastikas

/in , , , , , , /by

A new low for Canada’s wretched prime minister.

Canada’s House of Commons erupts after Trudeau accuses Jewish MP of supporting swastikas

The speaker of the House of Commons admonished Trudeau and others to avoid ‘inflammatory’ language

By Fox News, February 16, 2022

The Canadian House of Commons erupted in shouts of condemnation Wednesday after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau replied to a Jewish member of Parliament by accusing members of the opposing Conservative Party of “standing with people who wave swastikas.”

Trudeau, a member of the Liberal Party, made his comment in response to being grilled by Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman during a tense, emotional Question Period, which occurs every sitting day in the Canadian House of Commons when members of Parliament ask questions of government ministers, including the prime minister.

Lantsman, who became the first Jewish woman to be elected as a Conservative MP last October, read a 2015 quote from Trudeau when he said, “If Canadians are going to trust their government, their government needs to trust Canadians.”

Lantsman contrasted such a sentiment with Trudeau characterizing members of the Freedom Convoy as “very often misogynistic, racist, women-haters, science-deniers, the fringe.” Accusing him of fanning “the flames of an unjustified national emergency,” Lantsman demanded to know “When did the prime minister lose his way?”

“Conservative Party members can stand with people who wave swastikas, they can stand with people who wave the Confederate flag,” Trudeau said in response. “We will choose to stand with Canadians who deserve to be able to get to their jobs, to be able to get their lives back. These illegal protests need to stop, and they will.”

The other side of chamber erupted in response, prompting Speaker of the House of Commons Anthony Rota to interrupt in an attempt to restore order. He also admonished all — “including the Right Honourable prime minister” — to avoid “inflammatory” language in the House.

MP Dane Lloyd later rose to rebuke Trudeau for his comment, saying, “Mr. Speaker, I’ve never seen such shameful and dishonorable remarks coming from this prime minister. My great-grandfather flew over 30 missions over Nazi Germany. My great-great-uncle’s body lies at the bottom of the English Channel. There are members of this Conservative caucus who are the descendants of victims of the Holocaust.

“For the prime minister to accuse any colleague in this house of standing with a swastika is shameful. I’m giving the prime minister an opportunity. I’m calling on him to unreservedly apologize for this shameful remark,” he added.

Trudeau three times ignored Lloyd’s demand for an apology, which Lloyd said “speaks volumes.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jordan Peterson Rips Trudeau Over Swastika Taunt To Jewish Lawmaker: Never ‘Encountered Anyone More Self-Righteous’

Trudeau blames Americans for trucker protest, crisis inside Canada

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

‘Actual Malice’: Rittenhouse Responds To Biden Calling Him A ‘White Supremacist’

/in , , , , , , /by

Kyle Rittenhouse responded Monday to President Joe Biden’s September 2020 claim made after a presidential debate that likened him to a white supremacist.

Rittenhouse, acquitted Friday by Kenosha, Wisconsin, jury of all five charges related to his August 2020 shooting of three men during a protest, gave an interview to Fox News host and Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson, during which he addressed the president’s characterization of him.

“What did you make of the president of the United States calling you a white supremacist?” Carlson asked his guest.

“Mr. President, if I can say one thing to you, I would urge you to go back and watch the trial and understand the facts before you make a statement,” Rittenhouse responded. “It’s actual malice, defaming my character, for him to say something like that.”

In September 2020, then presidential-candidate Biden claimed after a presidential debate that former President Donald Trump “refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night,” posting a video that showed various “white supremacist” groups, among whom was Rittenhouse.

Wendy Rittenhouse, Kyle’s mother, said Thursday she was “shocked” and “angry” at Biden for accusing her son of being a white supremacist, claiming that Biden took advantage of Kyle to boost his support before the 2020 election.

Following Rittenhouse’s acquittal, Biden said he stood by “what the jury has concluded,” only to later issue a statement, where he expressed his concern with the decision.

“While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken,” Biden said in an official statement released later. “I urge everyone to express their views peacefully, consistent with the rule of law. Violence and destruction of property have no place in our democracy.”

COLUMN BY

SHAKHZOD YULDOSHBOEV

Contributor.

RELATED VIDEO: Kwame Brown Says Kyle Rittenhouse Acted In Self-Defense, Adds People Are Paid To Push ‘Racist Sh*t’

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rittenhouse’s Lawyer Slams Biden For Suggesting Rittenhouse Is A ‘White Supremacist’

‘In Jail For 87 Days’: Kyle Rittenhouse Says His Lawyers Used Him For Political Gain

Cop Fired For Donating To Rittenhouse Says His Actions Were Justified By Trial

Sunny Hostin Says Rittenhouse ‘Wouldn’t Be Alive Now’ If He Was Black

EDITORS NOTE: The Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The New Savagery of the Oldest Hatred

/in , , , , , /by

Same old, same old. But not it’s America, not Germany. And you won’t find it covered by the Democrat media complex.

The New Furies of the Oldest Hatred

Take a good look at who is speaking out against Jew-hate. And who is staying silent.

By: Peter Savodnik, Bari Weiss Substack, May 21, 2021:

The furies have been unleashed. They were everywhere you looked these past two weeks, though you won’t read about them much in the papers.

We saw them on Thursday, when pro-Palestinian protesters threw an explosive device into a crowd of Jews in New York’s Diamond District. We saw them on Wednesday, when two men were attacked outside a bagel shop in midtown Manhattan. We saw them on Tuesday, at a sushi restaurant in West Hollywood, when a group of men draped in keffiyehs asked the diners who was Jewish, and then pummeled them. And in a parking lot not far away, when two cars draped in Palestinian flags roared after an Orthodox man fleeing for his life. And in the story of the American soccer player Luca Lewis, cornered by a band of men in New York demanding to know if he was a Jew. Then there was the caravan careening through Jewish neighborhoods in North London carrying people screaming: “Fuck the Jews! Rape their daughters!” And the rabbi, outside London, who was hospitalized after being attacked by two teenagers. And the demonstrator in Vienna shouting, “Shove your Holocaust up your ass!” — the crowd of young people, mostly women, cheering. The synagogue in Skokie that was vandalized. The synagogue in Tucson that was vandalized. The synagogue in Salt Lake that was vandalized. The pro-Israel demonstrators in Montreal pelted with rocks. And the pro-Palestinian agitators in Edmonton driving around in search of Jews. The teeming crowds in Washington, D.C., Berlin, Bangladesh, Philadelphia and Boston and San Francisco and, of course, across the Arab world. The seemingly ubiquitous accusations of “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing.” The Turkish president, reaching all the way back to the Middle Ages, accusing Israelis of “sucking the blood” of non-Jewish children. Every hour on the hour, the celebrities posted their memes and the elected officials and the influencers — it’s hard to tell the difference — called Israel an “apartheid” regime. Apartheid regimes, like regimes guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing, are meant to be overthrown. Violently, if need be. So bloodshed is warranted, yes?The silence-is-violence people — those who are quick to “call out” anyone deemed inadequately antiracist, experts at digging up any dusty book passage — have been remarkably quiet when it comes to Jews being dehumanized and hunted down.

Let us dispense with the fiction, once and for all, that hating the Jewish homeland, which contains the largest Jewish community on Earth, is different from hating Jews. It has been exceedingly difficult in our blinkered, hyper-secularized present, so removed from the primal animosities of not so long ago, to conceive of a world in which tens or hundreds of millions of people who have never visited Israel or never met a Jew want Jews dead. We’ve been blinded by the oceanic success of life under the Pax Americana. We think this is how people are. This is not how people are. This is a wondrous aberration. There were 2,000 years of ghettos, blood libels and pogroms, of dehumanization and second-class citizenship that culminated with the Shoah. For the past several decades — a sneeze in the span of Jewish history — we American Jews have been maundering through the happy, mournful echoes of the recent past. That recent past meant that we weren’t shocked to see this violence from the Europeans, who have never stopped hating Jews, but who had been forced, by the camps, to camouflage their Jew hate in their criticism of Israel, their obsession with it. But America? We were not steeped in the Old World hatreds. We were deeply flawed — who wasn’t? — but our flaws were always in conflict with our identity. One of the many problems with antisemitism, like Jim Crow, was that it made a mockery of our ideals, which made it impossible to hold onto the old bigotries forever. One had to reject Jew-hate and support the Jewish right to self-determination for the same reason one had to dismantle literacy laws that limited voting rights: It was central to the American weltanschauung. It was part of our animating ethic. The progress was glacial and uneven but inexorable. It was America becoming more American. We were supposed to have transcended the old blood-and-soil stupidities. But they can’t be transcended. That was a beautiful myth, a myth that was fundamental to our idea of ourselves. But we are losing ourselves.

How did this happen? It’s inane to try to superimpose a tidy, monocausal explanation on all of the above. But we know a few things for sure. America’s great institutions, and the security and stability and rhythm they once provided, have been co-opted, and this has had an unbelievably destabilizing impact on all aspects of American life. We have lost this edifice, which took decades to build and about ten minutes to tear down, because of our remarkably spineless “elite,” who seem to have no concept what role they are meant to play, or if they do, simply don’t have the cojones. Then there is the transformation of the American left. The left used to imagine itself having one job. That job was to protect the interests of the working class. In fact, until not long ago, the left could not imagine a politics outside the framework of a Herculean struggle pitting the working class against the managerial elite, otherwise known as the Republican Party. Literally every conversation started and ended with class. Class struggle, class warfare, the working class, the middle class. But in the last quarter of the 20th century, the old fight against economic inequality gave way to the pressures of the market and geopolitics. The Chinese gave up on violent, socialist totalitarianism and embraced a kind of retrofitted capitalism. Then came Thatcher, Reagan, the end of the Cold War, the collapse of Soviet communism, the Indians (who, in 1991, embarked on a Reagan-like unwinding of the old Five-Year Plans), the internet, globalization, Bill Clinton, and the narrowing of our ideological differences. In just a few decades, traditional left-wing politics seemed to have lost its reason for being. There was a void, and a need for a new organizing principle to try to make sense of the world. Into the void seeped the new, soft-boiled thinking about race and gender, which had been fomenting, mostly on campus, for the past two decades. Identity soon acquired a new status among liberals, who now called themselves progressives. It comported with our shifting demographics, and it gave the Democratic leadership, which could no longer talk about soaking the rich, something to talk about. Over the past two decades, this obsession with identity has intensified and spread. Progressives are now incapable of talking about anything important without mentioning human beings’ immutable traits.Any politics of identity was bad for the Jew. On the right, the identiarians said that the Jew lacked whiteness — it was a new version of the old Nazi claim about our impurity. On the left, the Jew was said to have too much. In 2021, we are well-aware of the white-nationalist inanities. We have memorized the horrific footage from Charlottesville. We remember every Jew murdered in Pittsburgh and in Poway.But their chants of “Jews Will Not Replace Us” are now being joined by the identitarians of the left, who wield vastly more capital and power, in government, in the media, in the universities, in Hollywood, and in Silicon Valley. (It’s curious that Rep. Rashida Tlaib has accused Israel of “forced population replacement.”) Together, they form a bleating chorus of grievances. Somehow their roster of The Hurt never includes the Jew.The betrayal of the Jew has been building. It started with an unexpected moral relativism (one recalls Howard Dean, on the presidential campaign trail in 2003, saying it was not America’s place to take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Then there were the apologetic Jews, the Jews who felt, as so many Jews have felt across the centuries, that they must have done something wrong, the self-haters, the internalizers, who fashioned themselves into perfect fig leaves. This escalated into a low-simmering hostility (with Joseph Lieberman, the one-time vice-presidential nominee, slowly exiting his party), and the coolness of Barack Obama, and his insistence on an Iranian nuclear deal that seemed to excite American progressives more than any Israeli (or Saudi or Emirati) general. Then there were the activists. All of them seemed to have a — what’s the word? — problematic relationship with the Jewish community. It wasn’t just an incident or untoward comment. It seemed characterological. The Women’s March was helmed by a Louis Farrakhan acolyte who was not shunned, but put in the pages of Vogue and now stars in an ad for Cadillac. Black Lives Matter was birthed by a fake Marxist who apparently enjoys when her book is compared to Mao’s, and whose original charter accused Israel of “genocide” and “apartheid.”The progressives will respond that there is nothing antisemitic about criticizing Israeli policy. They are right! All governments should be scrutinized. But criticism of Israeli policy is often just criticism of Israel’s existence. We know this because the criticized policies almost always involve Israel being able to defend itself against hostile neighbors (being able to exist); and because there is an obsession with Israel that distinguishes it from any other country or foreign-policy issue. Countless Muslims have suffered at the hands of the Chinese, Indians and Russians — to say nothing of the Assad regime having incinerated as many as 600,000 Syrians, the nearly 500,000 Palestinians confined to refugee camps in Lebanon, or the indentured servants, including many Palestinians, in the nearby Gulf. This is not whataboutism. It is perspective. Progressives will insist that we have progressed, as it were, beyond antisemitism. We don’t live in that world anymore. Don’t be paranoid! The violence in the streets doesn’t represent the movement! Note that the same people who insist that America hasn’t made one iota of progress on race — that we have so much work to do — also insist that we have resolved with the Jewish problem that goes back to Jesus. Sure. Elected Democrats, for a while, mostly held it together. They used to call the Jew hate what it was. Recall, for example, Senator Chuck Schumer, just two years ago, comparing Rep. Ilhan Omar’s remarks about Israel to Donald Trump’s comments about neo-Nazis. That was when Democrats embraced Israel’s right to defend itself, and condemned the loss of Palestinian life, but didn’t hesitate to note that it was Palestinians compounding Palestinian misery: a corrupt regime in Ramallah and an even more corrupt and violent and unimaginably inhumane regime in Gaza that was controlled by a terrorist organization backed by Iran.But over the past few years, progressives have slowly — and then not so slowly — abandoned those positions. They have succumbed, like so many on the right, to their partisan manias. Trump was “for” Israel; they had to be “against” it. They have stumbled into the bottomless rage of the identitarian left. They have embraced the new racial-gender taxonomy, which reimagines thousands of years of Jewish history into a wokified diorama. Today, the conflict can only be seen through this flattening prism, with Israel playing the role of the white, colonial settler and the Palestinian that of the settler’s dark-skinned, indigenous victim. All this cartoonishness has led progressives to erase the “lived experience,” as one is now trained to say, of the nearly one million Arab Jews who did not migrate to the Middle East but were expelled from their homes, in 1948, the year of Israeli independence, by Arab regimes. They have also ignored the pivotal role that was played, for two decades, by Egypt, which occupied Gaza, and by Jordan, which occupied the West Bank — a two-pronged occupation that presaged the broader Arab community’s attitude toward the Palestinians, whom they treated as fodder. The Palestinians, in the eyes of most other Arabs, were not a people but bodies they were happy to sacrifice to achieve what their armies could not in the Six-Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur War of 1973. That was the moral of the Arab military humiliation: Conventional armies could not defeat Israel, but maybe a protest movement pushing up against Israel’s borders — abetted by an adoring press corps, aid groups, repurposed Soviet propaganda and lots of E.U. cash — could. It was a brilliant segue.Now we are confronted with the spectacle of members of Congress droning on on the House floor about how the Israeli army is somehow guilty of systemic racism and superimposing complicated ideas concocted by a French philosopher they’ve never read onto a conflict they barely comprehend.They are an embarrassment and a disgrace and they are enabled by the cowards in their own party who are reluctant to criticize them for fear of being called racist or, God forbid, being primaried. That is not the worst that can be said. The worst that can be said is that, by squeezing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the Procrustean Bed of left-wing identitarianism, the new progressives have alienated the Jew, who, for the most part, remains attached to the Jewish State, from the American body politic. By transforming the Jewish State into a force for evil, they have forced the Jew to defend that attachment. They have created a space separating the Jew from America, and, in that space, they have legitimized violence against the Jew for defending the indefensible: “apartheid,” “colonialism,” “white supremacy,” “ethnic cleansing,” “genocide.”It is the Jewish youngs who are most vulnerable to the new idiocy. It is in their classrooms, on their screens. They find themselves in a sad lacuna. They have been steeped in Jewishness at home. But, on campus, on Zoom, on TikTok, on YouTube, on Instagram, they are pummeled by a ceaseless and acrimonious anti-Zionism.They respond predictably. Only 48 percent of American Jews under 30, in a recent Pew Research Study, feel close to the Jewish State (but 82 percent of Jews overall do). They prefer not to be affiliated with it. They say that Israel doesn’t represent them, that it doesn’t embody their version of Judaism, that it doesn’t align with their brand. They talk endlessly about Palestinian narratives and the need for the white settler to check his privilege, and they seem to forget that they are the most privileged Jews ever to walk the face of the Earth and that turning away from Israel is nothing more than exercising that privilege, flaunting their great fortune. One suspects their contemporaries raised in more antisemitic climates do not share their antipathy. The Jewish olds will reassure you that the sclerotic Democratic leadership — the 81-year-old Speaker of the House, the 70-year-old Senate Majority Leader and the 78-year-old president of the United States — are keeping the crazy in check. They are mistaken. This is not about who outmaneuvers whom in Congress, or the midterms, or the presidential primary. It is not about whipping votes or moving legislation. It is about the sea change that has engulfed us and that has exposed this most meaningless of distinctions without a difference: anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

The olds won’t be here forever. What will come next? For the 75% of Jews who vote Democrat, they will, presumably, continue to believe the right is unpalatable. That the G.O.P.’s lunatics are not tunneling their way into the party leadership, like they are on the left, but have already wrested control. Yes, the Abraham Accords are a great achievement, but what does policy matter when we can’t agree on who won an election? When members of Congress are comparing mask mandates to the Holocaust? Are there any other options?Right now, there is a single freshman congressman from the Bronx trying to hold back the tidal wave of insanity. Soon enough, Ritchie Torres’ colleagues will declare that anyone who is not adequately anti-Zionist is a white supremacist or else ok with white supremacy. Jews who refuse to disavow their Judaism and their Zionism will be discouraged from leadership positions or running for office. Their money will be welcome at closed-door meet n’ greets on Park Avenue or in the Palisades. Bagels, lox, a few Yiddishisms sprinkled into the conversation to make everyone feel tolerant, but please, no talk of that godawful abomination of a Nazi desert.Most of us will delude ourselves, Sarah Silverman-style.We’re good Jews. We’re not Israelis. I love Shabbat! I just don’t like Israel. We will wrap ourselves in our hypocrisy and self-loathing and fear. We will try to wish it away. We will post the right things, about defunding the police or hate having no home here or whatever. We will genuflect. We will pretend that we are not alone, like the Jewish State. That will be the only way to navigate our alienation. To lie and lie and lie to the world and, most importantly, to ourselves.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rashida Tlaib was special guest for event hosted by Islamic terror spox who promotes Holocaust denial and Jew-hatred

New York Red Bulls goalkeeper Luca Lewis says jihadi mob in NYC said they’d KILL HIM IF HE WAS A JEW

‘I WOULD DO IT AGAIN’: Racist Muslim Who Brutally Beat, Bloodied NYC Jewish Man Shows No Remorse

Irish parliament to vote on motion to expel Israeli ambassador

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

STUDY: Religious Scriptures that Legitimize Violence Cause More Believers to Support Terrorism

/in , , , , /by

“Study authors suspect the reason for this dramatic difference between the faiths is because a large number of Muslims adhere to a ‘fundamentalist interpretation’ of their faith.”

It’s actually because of the contents of the Islamic scriptures, which contain direct exhortations to do violence against unbelievers. Jewish and Christian scriptures contain some violent passages, but no open-ended, universal command for believers to make war against unbelievers.

Religious scriptures that legitimize violence cause more believers to support deadly extremist acts

by Chris Melore, Study Finds, April 23, 2021 (thanks to R):

BERLIN, Germany — Religious texts provide the faithful with the guiding principles to live, what their cultures consider, the best lives. Some of these ancient texts, however, come from times when violence against non-believers was an accepted practice. Although these spiritual scriptures are typically a motivating force for good, a new study finds verses which legitimize violence do cause people to support deadly extremism in today’s society.

From America, to Europe, to regions throughout the world, violent extremist incidents have been a modern plague in recent years. Researchers from the Berlin Social Science Center (WZB) note many of these perpetrators quote verses from their religion’s holy scriptures during their deadly crimes.

Abdullah H., a Syrian standing trial for allegedly stabbing a homosexual couple and killing another man in Dresden, Germany last year, reportedly testified that he was inspired to commit the crime by a Quranic sura. Despite incidents like this, study authors say experts continue to doubt that religion can truly motivate people to do violence.

Dangerous influences in scripture?

Researchers Ruud Koopmans and Eylem Kanol gathered 8,000 Christians, Muslims, and Jews to determine whether or not certain scriptures can lead believers to support killing enemies of the faith. Study authors included participants from the U.S., Germany, Cyprus, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian territories, and Kenya in this experiment.

For half of the group, researchers asked if they thought lethal force against their faith’s non-believers was justified without any introduction or setup to the question. For the other half however, the team first presented them with a quote from the Bible, Koran, or Torah. These quotes endorse violence against those who allegedly do not believe in those religions.

Results reveal that referencing scriptural passages which legitimize violence noticeably increases support for deadly acts among all three faiths. The impact also remained constant across all seven countries as well. However, researchers find support of deadly extremism was weaker among Jews and Christians than among Muslims.

Specifically, nine percent of the Christians supported violence without reading any scriptures beforehand. That number rose to 12 percent among Christians seeing such a quote before hearing the question. For Jews, three percent supported violence without reading quotes and seven percent supported it after seeing such a passage.

Among Muslims, the study finds 29 percent supported violence against non-believers without any extra influence. For those referencing a Quranic quote first, 47 percent said they supported violence against religious enemies.

Fundamentalism can lead to rationalizing violence

Study authors suspect the reason for this dramatic difference between the faiths is because a large number of Muslims adhere to a “fundamentalist interpretation” of their faith. Fundamentalists typically view the holy scriptures of their religion literally. They consider the teachings and principles of their faith to still be completely valid in present day society….

The study appears in the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies.

REALTED ARTICLES:

UK: Muslims demand Muslim official resign for saying she’d ‘welcome’ teacher who showed Muhammad cartoon

UK: Muslim migrant family has two brothers who fought for ISIS, four other jailed jihadis

Islamic scholar: European women used to wear hijab, but then Jews spread Darwinism and ‘culture of nudity’

France: Imam supports niqab ban, Muslims threaten to kill him, put a bounty on his head

Pope Francis denounces deaths of illegal Muslim migrants in Mediterranean as ‘shameful’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Iraqi government blocked Jews from attending pope’s interfaith service, Vatican silently went along

/in , , /by

Associated Press reported Saturday: “The Vatican said Iraqi Jews were invited to the event but did not attend, without providing further details.”

Now we know the rest of the story. And so it is clear yet again: interfaith outreach and dialogue all go one way, and result in the Christian side becoming mute about Muslim persecution of Christians, and ultimately becoming less Christian altogether, and more accepting of Islamic mores it should know better than to accept, such as deeply-rooted Islamic antisemitism. The pope didn’t dare say anything about this, because speaking out might have jeopardized his meeting with Sistani and whole visit to Iraq. So what did that visit accomplish? Nothing and less than nothing.

“Iraq Bars Jews From Pope’s Interfaith Event,”

by Jules Gomes, Church Militant, March 8, 2021 (thanks to Tom):

NASSIRIYA, Iraq (ChurchMilitant.com) – Jewish leaders are slamming Pope Francis’ silence on Iraq’s anti-Semitic policies after it emerged that the Iraqi government blocked Jews from attending the pontiff’s interfaith service at the birthplace of Abraham.

A delegation of Jews was unable to attend the “Abrahamic” event even though the Vatican had invited the representatives to be present because “the Iraqi government stymied efforts for any Jews to travel to Iraq,” the Jerusalem Post reported Sunday.

Multiple Jewish sources confirmed to Church Militant the veracity of the Jerusalem Post’s report explaining that Iraq may have barred the Jewish delegation because Iraq does not officially recognize Israel and there are no relations between the two states.

Vatican Questioned for Its Silence

Freddie Dalah, an Iraqi Jew who fled Iraq for Britain years ago, asked Church Militant why “the pope, using this great opportunity, did not take the Iraqi government to task regarding the conspicuous absence of any prominent Jews as a delegation for their community?”

“The absence of Jews from the event confirms the Vatican’s historic silence when it comes to the ethnic cleansing of the Jews not only from Europe but from the Middle East as well,” Dalah observed. “Sincerely, a bit more shrewdness in managing the diplomatic situation regarding the absence of the Jewish community would not have gone amiss.”

Speaking to Church Militant, Iraqi-born Edwin Shuker, vice president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said he “genuinely believed that the Vatican was misled by the Iraqi government into thinking that there will be a Jewish presence in Ur.”

“The Iraqi government, who intended to do so, recently changed their mind in case the Jewish delegation has links with Israel,” Shuker said, “but they could not find local Jewish representatives and ended up with a wasted opportunity.”

Shuker and his family fled to the United Kingdom in 1971 amid rising tensions, with dozens of Iraqi Jews executed on spurious charges, but regularly travels back to Iraq, working to preserve Jewish shrines and sites to maintain links between Iraq and its displaced Jewish community.

The Vatican “made it a point of telling journalists” that it had invited representatives of Iraq’s Jewish community to attend “despite the fact that Muslims violently purged the Jews from the country decades ago,” wrote Yakir Benzion.

“The Vatican didn’t bother telling the reporters why none showed up,” remarked Benzion, from United with Israel — the world’s largest pro-Israel online community.

“I am sad that the Iraqi government prevented Jews, Abraham’s children, from participating in what was meant to be a prayer for peace,” lamented well-known Rabbi Elchanan Poupko of the Rabbinical Council of America.

Asking why a rabbi was not present at the birthplace of Abraham as part of the papal event, Middle East analyst, writer and peace activist Yoni Michanie said Francis should have spoken up and also remembered the “tens of thousands of Iraqi Jews who were ethnically cleansed in the late 1940s.”

On Saturday, Church Militant reported the conspicuous absence of Jews from the Ur event, quoting Jewish anthropologist Karen Harradine, who said she found it “insulting to us Jews that we were not included by those who used the birthplace of our first patriarch, Abraham, to virtue signal and mumble meaningless platitudes about healing.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Yes, He Murdered a Jewish Woman While Screaming ‘Allahu Akbar,’ But You See, He Was Stoned

Greece boosts armed forces amid rising Turkish aggression

Pakistan: Muslims denounce International Women’s Day March as ‘un-Islamic’

Yemen: Iran-backed Houthis fire ballistic missiles and drones at oil facilities and military sites in Saudi Arabia

India: Shia cell behind bombing near Israeli Embassy as part of Iran’s ‘asymmetric warfare against Israel’

France: Schoolgirl admits she made up story that led to jihad beheading of schoolteacher

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: KAMALA TARGETING CATHOLICS — A long history of anti-Catholic bigotry

/in , , , , , /by

Kamala Harris: “to do the best work we can to give these victims dignity and give them a voice.”

As prosecutor in California, Kamala Harris tried to sell herself as tough on sex abuse — but victims of Catholic clergy tell a different tale.

Joey Piscitelli: “Everything just went down the tubes.”

Catholic Joey Piscitelli, a sex abuse survivor, was stonewalled at every turn when he asked Harris to release clergy sex abuse files in San Francisco. He and other victims accused her of covering up child sex abuse by pedophile priests after she received donations from high-level staff in the archdiocese of San Francisco, including lawyers involved in priest sex abuse cases who gave thousands of dollars to Kamala’s campaign.

Joey Piscitelli: “I would like her to produce one clergy abuser or one bishop that she’s even tried to prosecute.”

In fact, Harris was the only D.A. in the nation’s top 50 major cities to fail to prosecute even a single case of priest sex abuse.

While letting sexual predators slide, she’s zealous in going after Catholic pro-lifers.

David Daleiden: “Top Planned Parenthood executives met with Kamala Harris in March of 2016 specifically requesting that she use the law enforcement powers of her office to seize dozens of hours of unreleased undercover footage.”

Pro-life Catholic David Daleiden was first to expose Planned Parenthood’s trafficking in aborted babies’ body parts. While attorneys general across the country launched investigations into the abortion giant’s criminal conduct, Harris indulged Planned Parenthood — one of her wealthiest backers — by launching a political prosecution not against Planned Parenthood, but against the journalist and whistleblower.

David Daleiden: “It’s using the law enforcement powers of Kamala Harris’ office to punish dissenting thought.”

Harris has also said she wants to go after the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of nuns who fought a successful legal battle against Obama’s contraception mandate.

While the Sisters won their case in the Supreme Court, Harris has vowed to relitigate the case if given the chance.

She also took steps in California to counteract the Sisters’ victory, sponsoring the Do No Harm Act, which would strip Catholic employers of the right to deny coverage for contraception as well as force them to hire same-sex employees.

But it was her naked religious discrimination against a judge that caused Catholic politician Newt Gingrich to say of her “[She] is the most openly anti-Catholic bigot to be on a national ticket in modern times.”

In 2018 she sent a written question to federal judicial nominee Brian Buescher asking about his membership in the Knights of Columbus, calling it an “all-male society” that rejects abortion.

Kamala Harris: “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?”

The question was met with immediate backlash, exposing her bias that one can’t believe in core Catholic teaching and work for the government.

Sen. Ben Sasse: “This is the same kind of garbage that was thrown at John F. Kennedy 60 years ago when he was campaigning for the presidency.”

Fr. Gerald Murray: “It’s not fair to say if you are a member of a Catholic organization, you are an extremist, because we don’t have religious tests in the United States.”

Harris also abused her power as California A.G. by obstructing the sale of Catholic hospitals in exchange for$25 million in political contributions from a union.

Six Daughters-of-Charity-run hospitals were being sold to Prime Healthcare, but as a favor to the Service Employees International Union, she intervened, insisting that the hospitals be unionized as part of the sale.

The burdensome restrictions led to Prime backing out — and all six struggling Catholic hospitals being shut down.

Prime sued Harris in 2017, exposing Harris’ backroom deal with the union, accusing her of unconstitutional abuse of office. Harris skated, the court granting her qualified immunity as a public officer.

Kamala Harris: “We have a chance to change the course of history.”

If trends continue, Harris may soon be in the White House. With her long track record of corruption and cronyism, there’s no reason to think she won’t use her heightened powers of office to crush Catholics under her heel.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Watch How ‘The View’ Treats Conservative Black Voices | Kim Klacik

/in , , , , , /by

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Kim Klacik (U.S. House candidate) about her recent appearance on “The View” and her argument with Joy Behar. Kim explains why there seems to be a double standard for how black women are treated on ”The View” depending on if they are liberal or conservative. She also explains why there are growing numbers of black Trump supporters and black conservatives. Finally, she explains why she is running for office in Baltimore and how 50-plus years of Democratic leadership has failed the black voters of her city.

©The Rubin Report. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Antifa Wants to ‘Overthrow Our Government,’ Terrorism Expert Says

The Democrats’ War on Blacks

/in , , , , , /by

When hearing talk of Democrats’ war on blacks, some may think of the 92 percent of black homicide victims murdered by other blacks mainly in Democrat-run cities. Others may ponder the 300,000 black babies killed yearly in the womb with the approval, sometimes tacit, sometimes more overt, of many white liberals. Yet there’s another front in this war, one more recently opened and far more insidious.

When President Trump early this month ordered an end to mandatory “Critical Race Theory” (CRT) training in the federal bureaucracy — which sometimes involved compelling white male employees to write letters of apology to “marginalized” people — he was, predictably, called a “racist.” But if ending this destructive program is “racism,” well, then whatever racism is, we need more of it.

The CRT “training’s” anti-white nature is obvious. As Heritage Foundation fellow Christopher Rufo wrote last month, reporting on the CRT indoctrination at Sandia National Laboratories, the trainers insisted “that white males must ‘work hard to understand’ their ‘white privilege,’ ‘male privilege,’ and ‘heterosexual privilege.’”

Of course, such privilege exists like unicorns do. But insofar as blacks and other non-whites will believe it does and that they’re (perhaps fatally) disadvantaged, we should ask: How does making people more hopeless and bitter improve their prospects for success?

“Acting White”

It gets far, far worse, however. The trainers also claimed that “rugged individualism,” “a can-do attitude,” “hard work” and “striving towards success” reflected “white male culture,” which they said leads to “lowered quality of life at work and home, reduced life expectancy, unproductive relationships, and high stress.” I guess slacker bums who can’t put food on the table (when they have a table) have no stress.

But this Loser 101 indoctrination isn’t limited to Sandia or even the bowels of federal buildings. It’s in schools (and corporations) as well, where teachers are being told that hard work, planning for the future and punctuality are “white norms.” Try telling that to Asian-descent Americans, who, apparently, are just like white people — only more so.

(One race theory activist, Glenn Singleton, does tell them that, saying that Asian-descent Americans are a “majority” group because of their “white” habits. Honorary white people, I guess.)

Ironically, this is the very attitude black educators lamented, and combated, just a generation ago. Back then it was slacker, criminally inclined black youths (usually driven by jealously, mind you) accusing their higher achieving peers of “acting white.” This was universally recognized as destructive social pressure that militated against the embrace of success-breeding habits. Now the attitude has been lent the respectable veneer of educational theory and the endorsement of academic authorities.

This does violence to an already struggling black underclass. It’s man’s nature to glom on to convenient excuses, and American blacks have long been fed a diet of low expectations for performance and high expectations for copping out. Now pseudo-intellectual social engineers are exacerbating the problem.

Consider race-theory-demeaned punctuality. The saying goes that “80 percent of success is just showing up”; I’ll add that 90 percent of success is showing up on time. Yet as black writer T.J. Holmes lamented in 2014, failure to do so characterizes the black community.

In “It’s Time to Quit Operating on CP [Colored People’s] Time,” Holmes writes that our “challenges with starting or arriving on time are often dismissed with humorous complacency.” “You know how we are,” is what he hears from other blacks. “But this week,” he wrote, “CPT totally stopped being funny to me.”

After relating instances in which he’d been bitten by CPT, he stated, “This hurts to admit, but I often pause when considering doing business with black people or black companies, based on my experiences.”

Now, will activists call this black man a “racist”? They’ll more likely brand him an Uncle Tom. No amount of name-calling alters reality, however, which is this: We can institute all the affirmative action, quotas and set asides we want, but the last 50 years have proven that the wider society’s indulgence cannot compensate for a community’s fundamental virtue deficits. The pork barrel can keep people on a certain plantation, though.

Of course, as we’ll often hear regarding social ills, “It all starts at home.” It’s well known, too, that fatherlessness/family dissolution plagues the black community today, with 72 percent of black children born out of wedlock.

Now the Democrat Left aims to worsen this problem, too, with Black Lives Matter openly stating that one of its goals is to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement.” In this structure’s place, BLM wants blacks to care for each other, as it writes, “collectively.”

A popular race-hustler notion, the aforementioned Glenn Singleton called “collectivism” a black norm while BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors admitted “We are trained Marxists” (collectivists) in a 2015 video. And in pushing socialism on blacks, they are in a way working toward equal outcomes — for the vast majority of the 100 million souls thus far murdered by Marxist governments have been white or Asian.

The notion that blacks somehow require a different economic/moral framework (collectivism) than whites do gets at a truth: The CRT’s largely unrecognized philosophical foundation (philoso-babble, really) would have to be the relativism sweeping our time. The idea is that, as Louis Farrakhan put it, “A White Man’s Heaven Is a Black Man’s Hell” (I believe Hitler expressed a similar sentiment, by the way); that whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, women, etc. all have different “needs.”

The truth, however, is precisely the opposite. As Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson has put it, the black community’s problem is “immorality.” Often called sin, this is a universal plaguing everyone and causes most human woes. Now, the remedy for immorality is, obviously, morality. To be specific, if morality came in a jar, on the ingredients label would be virtues.

These are “good moral habits,” examples being hope, honesty, charity, fortitude, justice, temperance, prudence, chastity, patience, kindness, humility and love. Another virtue is diligence, which relates to punctuality and industriousness. Yet another is forgiveness, which forestalls the bitterness and hatred that can cause a person to focus on tearing society down instead of building himself up.

The point, however, is that virtues aren’t “white” or black, Hispanic or Asian, male or female.

They are divine.

They’re also universals. All people need them to live happy, prosperous, moral lives — there are no exceptions.

Anyone counseling against virtue — as the race activists do — is the worst enemy a people could have. In fact, this is why Rev. Peterson called BLM “worse than the Ku Klux Klan”: It’s doubtful that even the most clever white supremacist would think to, or could, convince blacks that virtue is vice.

But Democrat-enabling, and enabled, organizations — teachers’ unions, BLM, academia, etc. — are doing just that. And why? Well, since poor, dependent people vote Democrat by wide margins, a cynic could think that the Democrats would want to make the poor and dependent class as large as possible.

What’s for sure is that virtuous people rarely support leftists. So if I were an amoral modern Democrat lusting after power, I’d peddle vice, too.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab or Parler (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

Study: America Hit By Roughly 550 Violent Demonstrations In Three Months

/in , , , , , /by

Data gathered in a Thursday study suggested that the U.S. experienced nearly 550 violent demonstrations since May 26, the day after the death of George Floyd.

The vast majority of U.S. states have experienced riots in the past three months with Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Mississippi, West Virginia, Hawaii and Alaska being the only ones unscathed by violence, according to data gathered by The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED).

There were a total of 7,750 Black Lives Matter-linked demonstrations in the U.S. in 2,440 locations across all 50 states, according to ACLED’s data.

Ninety-three percent of these demonstrations were peaceful, but that indicated that approximately 543 events were violent, according to ACLED’s statistics.

Violent demonstrations have largely been contained to 220 locations with Portland being the hardest hit location, the data show.

There have been 38 incidents where riots damaged or brought down historical statues. Law enforcement deployed non-lethal munitions in 54% of the demonstrations where they were present, ACLED reported. A total of 5% of BLM protests have been met with force from officers, data showed.

ACLED also claimed that 50 incidents across the country in the past three months have featured armed individuals, and BLM protests have been recorded in South America, Africa, Asia and several violent demonstrations have been reported in Europe.

COLUMN BY

JAKE DIMA

Contributor.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘A Gut Punch,’ ‘We Just Feel Abandoned’: Police Union Execs Sound Off About Lack Of Morale That They Say Is Resulting From Politicians

Rioters In Rochester, New York Descend On Restaurant, Cause Patrons To Run Away

Police Suggest Michael Reinoehl Tracked Trump Supporter Before Fatal Shooting

Unfit To Print Episode 68: Pelosi Personifies Liberal Elitism With Salon Visit

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.