Beijing’s Lies Matter - Joseph Hippolito

 

by Joseph Hippolito

Chinese communists nurture BLM to destabilize America.

 

One year after George Floyd died in the custody of Minneapolis police, one year after riots ravaged the nation in his name, the founder of Black Lives Matter's chapter in nearby St. Paul quit.

“After a year on the inside, I learned they had little concern for rebuilding black families, and they cared even less about improving the quality of education for students in Minneapolis,” Rashard Turner said in a video May 26. One week later, Turner provided specifics in an interview with Fox News.

"When you call for a moratorium on charter schools, that is a direct attack on black families, on black children," Turner said. "We know that charter schools are creating opportunities. Anyone who is in opposition to school choice, charter schools, I would say they're racist.

"I was an insider in Black Lives Matter, and I learned the ugly truth."

That ugly truth goes beyond BLM's professional hypocrisy. It extends to an even uglier truth: BLM knowingly plays a pivotal role in China's quest to attain geopolitical and ideological supremacy by destabilizing the United States.

BLM's role is so pivotal that many of the group's leaders and affiliated bodies have relationships with organizations that are connected to China through fronts or diplomatic contacts.

"Black Lives Matter is a Communist organization 100 percent, tied to foreign Communists and directly to the Communist Party of China," said Trevor Loudon, an author and filmmaker from New Zealand who has studied Marxist movements for more than 30 years.

BLM embodies Mao Zedong's quest to foment revolution through race, as he succinctly stated:

"The evil system of colonialism and imperialism arose and thrived with the enslavement of Negroes and the trade in Negroes, and it will surely come to its end with the complete emancipation of the black people."

Mao took that approach because China had neither an industrialized working class nor an organized labor movement.

"So he really had to use race, ethnicity and cultural differences to start the revolution," Loudon said. "The best way to have a revolution is to utilize racial differences. In modern America, the Maoists all say, 'The people of color -- the black, Latino, Asian-American, Native American -- are being oppressed by the white, Christian, capitalist patriarchy.'

"The only way you can get rid of that oppression, get rid of that racism, is to overthrow the white, Christian, capitalist patriarchy. It's Marxist revolution based on color, rather than class."

Compare Loudon's and Mao's comments to remarks made by BLM co-founder Alicia Garza to a left-wing convention in 2015:

"It's not possible for a world to emerge where black lives matter if it's under capitalism, and it's not possible to abolish capitalism without a struggle against national oppression and gender oppression."

As FrontPage Magazine reported last year, Mao encouraged like-minded black activists, such as Robert Williams, who advocated violent revolution. Williams even visited Mao in 1966 in Beijing, where he gave an address.

After Mao's death, China used more sophisticated methods to gain increasingly pervasive influence in the West. The China-United States Exchange Foundation, founded in 2008, courts professors, students, government officials and reporters through tours, private discussions, dinners and joint research. The targets include historically black colleges and universities (HBCU), and the Congressional Black Caucus.

For the past four years, CUSEF paid an American consulting firm almost $670,000 to influence black students, professors and Congressional representatives. That firm, Wilson Global, also oversees the HBCU-China Scholarship Network.

Interestingly, President Barack Obama contacted China's government in 2014 about enabling black students to take classes there. As a result, the China Education Association for International Exchange made 1,000 scholarships available for students at historically black campuses.

But the CUSEF is linked to China's Communist Party through the United Front, a network of party organizations. The United Front works overseas "to co-opt and neutralize potential sources of opposition to the policies and authority" of the Communist Party, and encourages its targets "to take actions or adopt positions supportive of Beijing’s preferred policies," stated the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review.

Or as Jamestown Foundation fellow Peter Mattis said about the Chinese, "If they cultivate enough people in the right places, they start to change the debate without having to directly inject their own voice."

Black professors and politicians under Chinese influence make the perfect exponents of critical race theory and opponents of "white privilege," both of which came from Marxist intellectuals in the West.

James Cone, a professor at the liberal Union Theological Seminary, developed critical race theory. His Marxist pedigree includes visiting Fidel Castro's Cuba in 1984, along with Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor in Chicago. Meanwhile, Theodore White and Noel Ignatiev developed the idea of "white privilege" as a Marxist construct. Both men joined the Maoist branch of Marxism when Marxist groups in the United States split over ideology.

But intellectual revolution needs street activism to reach the proletariat. Enter Black Lives Matter.

When a security guard killed Trayvon Martin in 2013, Garza joined with Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tonetti to create the organization through a hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter. All three belonged to Liberation Road, an ideological descendant of the Maoist New Communist Movement. Garza also belongs to Left Roots, a subsidiary of Liberation Road.

"It really was a scam from start to finish," Loudon said. "They came up with the hashtag, put it out there and all the Liberation Road front groups and friendly media all around the country re-tweeted it, elevated it and made it into a movement. There's nothing spontaneous about this whatsoever."

Garza, a native of the Bay Area, also had been working with the San Francisco chapter of the Chinese Progressive Association since 2012. The CPA provides funding for the Black Futures Lab, a BLM subsidiary that Garza created to create policies and organize blacks. BLM calls the Black Futures Lab "a fiscally sponsored project of the Chinese Protective Association."

One of Garza's close friends is Alex Tom, a fellow student activist when both attended UC San Diego. Tom not only led the Chinese Progressive Association. He organized delegations to China, "boasts of his close association with Chinese diplomats in San Francisco (and) boasts of defending China," Loudon said.

"This is basically a Chinese operation," Loudon called the CPA, "a Communist Chinese operation."

So were the riots in Ferguson, Mo. in 2014 after Michael Brown's death and in Minneapolis last year after Floyd's death. A group called Organization for Black Struggle organized the violence in Ferguson. Leading that group was Jamala Rogers, a long-time member of Liberation Road.

"They brought 10,000 people from out of town to burn down Ferguson," Loudon said. "They were visited by delegations of Left Roots and Liberation Road members, some of whom had just returned from a visit to Communist China, where they met with Chinese Communist Party members, by their own admission."

Most of the businesses they destroyed were owned by African-Americans.

"The revolution doesn't want prosperous black people," Loudon said. "They only want oppressed, poverty-stricken, embittered black people."

That explains BLM's opposition to charter schools. It also explains BLM's silence on the death of David Dorn, a retired black police captain who was protecting a friend's store when a young black man killed him during last year's riots in St. Louis.

The riots in Minneapolis came under the jurisdiction of that city's affiliate of the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Oppression, a group founded by a member of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, another group of Maoists that split from Liberation Road.

Jess Sundin, who runs the affiliate, is married to Steff Yorek, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization's political secretary.

"Jess Sundin admits she started the riots," Loudon said. "She admits she did the organizing for this. I've got her on tape talking about her organizational role. I've got her on tape talking about the joy she felt when Precinct 3, the police station in that area, burned to the ground, and that the looting and rioting was an integral part of the movement.

"It wasn't peaceful demonstrators hijacked by radicals. It was radical right from the start. It was pro-China right from Day One."

Following Floyd's death, a BLM affiliate called the Movement 4 Black Lives, organized the ensuing mayhem nationwide.

"These are the people who coordinated riots and demonstrations all over the country for week after week after week," said Loudon, who identified them as "people directly affiliated to the Chinese consulate in San Francisco, people who travel to China to meet with Communist Party officials."

For Loudon, the implications are obvious.

"They are deliberately using America's racial differences to stir Americans up, to bring about a civil war, to weaken this country and destroy President [Donald] Trump," Loudon said about the Chinese. "This, to me, is an act of war."

 

Joseph Hippolito

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/06/beijings-lies-matter-joseph-hippolito/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

To Biden Administration: Record of Iran's Top "Moderate" Mullah - Majid Rafizadeh

 

by Majid Rafizadeh

The Biden administration must not lift sanctions against the Iranian regime and should immediately halt all negotiations with Rouhani's administration. It has presided over unspeakable human rights violations

• During Rouhani's tenure, thousands of people were executed, including women and children. In its 2019 global review of the death penalty, Amnesty International stated: "Iran retained its place as the world's second-most prolific executioner after China."

• In total, according to official estimates of the Iranian regime, more than 4,000 people were executed in Rouahni's two-term presidency: an average of 10 executions a week for eight years.

• Rouhani's two terms as President taught many Iranians that the idea of moderates in the Iranian regime is laughable and a myth. Many chants became popular in Iran for the first time, such as "Reformist, hardliner, the game is now over", "Death to Rouhani," "Shame on you Khamenei, step down from power," and "Death to the Islamic Republic."

• The Biden administration must not lift sanctions against the Iranian regime and should immediately halt all negotiations with Rouhani's administration. It has presided over unspeakable human rights violations; record-setting executions of men, women and children; suppression of Christians and other minorities, and a brutal crackdown on its population. If a country does not treat its own people well, why would it treat its neighbors any better?

During Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's tenure, thousands of people were executed, including women and children. Pictured: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. (Photo by Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images)

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has long been labeled in the West a "moderate" or "diplomatic sheikh" who will change the Iranian regime for the better. The Obama administration reached a deal with the Rouhani's administration and lifted sanctions against the Iranian regime; and now the Biden administration is forging ahead to revive former President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Rouhani before he leaves office.

Here, for perusal, are the eight-years of records of the so-called moderate President of Iran.

In his first term of presidency, beginning in 2015, Rouhani sealed the nuclear deal -- which, incidentally, Iran never signed -- with the Obama administration. As a result of the deal, both the United Nations' four rounds of sanctions and US sanctions against the Iran's regime were swiftly lifted and the ruling mullahs joined the global financial system. Billions of dollars flew into the regime's treasury.

The beneficiaries of having sanctions lifted were not, however, the ordinary people of Iran. Instead, the regime's officials, those connected to them, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), its elite branch called the Quds Force, and Iran's militia and terror groups across the Middle East profited from the Obama nuclear deal.

Under Rouhani's rule, in fact, the ordinary people's living standards in Iran kept deteriorating. The country's rising inflation reached a level witnessed in Iran only during World War I. Last month, an Iranian official, Ehsan Khandouzi, acknowledged on his Twitter account:

"Recently, the 75-year-old record of inflation was broken in Iran; If [sic] this is not happening then, the Central Bank should publish the February report. Iran only has seen inflation over 50 percent in the years of occupation (World War I)."

When it came to Rouhani's promises of providing greater political freedom and improving human rights, Iran's crackdown on free speech and its levels of oppression continued to rise under his watch. During the widespread protests of 2017 and 2019, the regime brutally suppressed the desperate levels of political unrest.

Rouhani's administration allowed one of the bloodiest crackdowns on protesters: more than 1,500 individuals were killed, many were arrested and tortured, and some high profile figures such as the champion wrestler Navid Afkari and dissident journalist Rouhollah Zam were mercilessly executed.

Under Rouhani's watch, systematic persecution of religious and ethnic minorities, including the Kurds, Sunnis and Christians also escalated .

During Rouhani's tenure, thousands of people were executed, including women and children. In its 2019 global review of the death penalty, Amnesty International stated: "Iran retained its place as the world's second-most prolific executioner after China." The Human Rights Watch "World Report 2021" stated that the Tehran regime is still one of the leading executioners in the world. In total, according to official estimates of the Iranian regime, more than 4,000 people were executed in Rouahni's two-term presidency: an average of 10 executions a week for eight years. To execute political prisoners, the regime's judiciary accuses defendants of vaguely defined charges labeled as "national security crimes," which include "moharebeh" (enmity against God), "ifsad fil arz" (sowing corruption on Earth), and "baghi" (armed rebellion).

Under Rouhani's rule, Iran's Sharia courts system denied defendants access to legal counsel and a fair trial. Lack of due process, forced confessions and physical or psychological torture were prominent. As the Human Rights Watch report noted:

"Iranian courts, and particularly revolutionary courts, regularly fall far short of providing fair trials and use confessions likely obtained under torture as evidence in court. Authorities have failed to meaningfully investigate numerous allegations of torture against detainees. Authorities routinely restrict detainees' access to legal counsel, particularly during the initial investigation period."

Rouhani's two terms as President taught many Iranians that the idea of moderates in the Iranian regime is laughable and a myth. Many chants became popular in Iran for the first time, such as "Reformist, hardliner, the game is now over", "Death to Rouhani," "Shame on you Khamenei, step down from power," and "Death to the Islamic Republic."

The so-called moderate President of Iran, Rouhani is only loyal to Khamenei, not to the people of Iran. Rouhani famously said, following the establishment of the Islamic Republic:

"If the revolution remains within the country it will be destroyed... We must export our revolution to Iraq, to Kuwait, to Afghanistan and to all Muslim countries and to all the oppressed countries."

The Biden administration must not lift sanctions against the Iranian regime and should immediately halt all negotiations with Rouhani administration. It has presided over unspeakable human rights violations; record-setting executions of men, women and children; suppression of Christians and other minorities, and a brutal crackdown on its population. If a country does not treat its own people well, why would it treat its neighbors any better?

• Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

 

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US foreign policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17451/iran-record-rouhani

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Lessons of the Yom Kippur War, Pre-Emptive Strikes, and Iran - Hugh Fitzgerald

 

by Hugh Fitzgerald

Newly released documents reveal that the Israeli government knew that Syria and Egypt were set to attack Israel on Yom Kippur 1973, but chose not to make a preemptive strike, fearing international condemnation.

The Yom Kippur War was a war Israel almost lost. The accepted story is that Israel was taken by surprise; that Egypt and Syria managed to launch simultaneous attacks against an unprepared IDF. It turns out that the true story was more disturbing than that: Israel knew in advance, thanks to American intelligence, of the Arabs’ plans, but refused to engage in a pre-emptive strike because of its leaders’ fear of world condemnation. They were willing, that is, to sacrifice Israeli lives in order to limit the diplomatic damage that would likely result from a pre-emptive strike. This was not a wise decision. The story is here: “Israel Knew of Imminent Attack Before Yom Kippur War, Did Not Strike for Fear of International Reaction: Documents,” by Benjamin Kerstein, Algemeiner, June 6, 2021:

Newly released documents reveal that the Israeli government knew that Syria and Egypt were set to attack Israel on Yom Kippur 1973, but chose not to make a preemptive strike, fearing international condemnation.

The Egyptian and Syrian surprise attack on Israel’s southern and northern borders set off the Yom Kippur War, which proved to be one of Israel’s most traumatic conflicts — with over 3,000 dead, thousands wounded, and enormous economic damage to the Jewish state.

Israeli news site Walla reported Sunday that the newly revealed documents include protocols of the Israeli security cabinet, which met on Yom Kippur just before the Egyptian-Syrian surprise attack to discuss newly arrived intelligence that war was about to break out.

Defense Minister Moshe Dayan told the assembled ministers, “The assumption is that this evening, at dusk, or shortly before dark, a full-scale attack will begin on both fronts.”

There was still time to order airstrikes that day, or the next, on both Egyptian and Syrian forces, and to move more IDF troops into the Sinai (which in 1973 Israel still held), and further south, as well as call up the reserves on which the IDF must depend. But Israel did none of those things before Egypt and Syria attacked. It didn’t want to be seen as the aggressor.

There is a phrase to describe this Israeli attitude: the “galut mentality.” This refers to the attitude of Diaspora Jews of bowing and scraping and being quiet for fear of offending the Christians; thank goodness there was no such attitude in June 1967, when Israel attacked first, putting aside any worries about what the world might think, and consequently was able to destroy the Egyptian Air Force within the first day of the Six-Day War.

This information [about a full-scale attack by Egypt and Syria], he said, had come from American intelligence, which had “credible information” that an attack was imminent and had informed the Israelis a few days before.

Since the intelligence about Egyptian and Syrian plans came from the Americans, they would understand fully – and certainly not condemn – Israel for striking first. They could even testify that they had been the ones to furnish that information to Israel. It’s unclear what “condemnation” Israel was worried about. Did it fear condemnation by the Europeans? By the U.N.? As long as the Americans could exercise their veto power in the U.N. Security Council, the U.N. could no nothing except issue its usual anti-Israel resolutions at the General Assembly, which unlike Security Council resolutions, are non-binding.

Israel had at first dismissed the information, but now believed it to be true, particularly because Egypt’s Russian advisors were leaving the country. This, said Dayan, was a “red light.”

Several ministers and IDF commanders said Israel should undertake a preemptive attack on the enemy’s air bases and missile sites.

In retrospect, this position appears to have been correct. A preemptive attack on those airbases and missile sites might have saved hundreds, if not thousands, of Israeli lives. That should have been more important than preventing any “condemnation” by those already ill-disposed to Israel; its friends, and especially the United States which knew the truth about Arab plans, would have stuck by Israel, once it had been assured that the intelligence, furnished by America, prompted that pre-emption.

Prime Minister Golda Meir said that the idea was appealing, but “I know what kind of world we live in. … It’s a pity, but it’s not going to work.”

Dayan said, “We have to make sure it’s a clear-cut case” were Israel to attack.

Why were Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan so worried about world public opinion? As long as they had the backing of the Americans, who were their suppliers and resuppliers of arms, what did those speeches at the U.N. matter? Israel could have laid out the intelligence it had on Egyptian and Syrian plans, have shown evidence – videos from the air — of the Egyptian and Syrian troops and tanks arranged on the Suez Canal and near the Golan, respectively, and alluded to “information we had received from a friendly source about Egyptian and Syrian intentions.” In this case both Meir and Dayan were wrong to be so anxious about world reaction.

Justice Minister Yaakov Shapira disagreed, noting that Israel had struck first in the 1967 Six Day War, and while it was seen as the aggressor by many, “it is very good that we were like that, because otherwise who knows if we would exist at all?”

The Justice Minister appears to have had more sense, or less of the galut mentality, than either Meir or Dayan. The Six-Day War began when Nasser first moved tens of thousands of troops northward in the Sinai, blockaded the Straits of Tiran, and announced to hysterical Cairene crowds that the destruction of Israel was imminent. But the first physical blow was struck by Israel, when the IAF destroyed the Egyptian Force on the first day of the war. No one in Israel today thinks that was a mistake. Those who wanted to blame Israel would do so no matter what, but most of the world was deeply impressed by the IDF’s spectacular performance, against much larger militaries.

Ultimately, however, the idea of a preemptive attack was abandoned, and the war began shortly after.

Why are these newly-released minutes of the Israeli Cabinet meeting just before the Yom Kippur War so important today? It’s because they offer a previous example of when Israel allowed itself to be held in check by its own worries over diplomatic responses to a pre-emptive attack, and the disastrous consequences of that decision.

Given the certainty that both the Americans and Iranians will return to the JCPOA, it’s clearly going to be up to Israel alone to prevent Iran from ever acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel’s leaders have already said they are prepared to do “whatever it takes.” That means a series of acts to keep slowing down Iran’s nuclear project, just as Israel has been doing since 2010, when the Stuxnet computer worm was introduced into Iranian computers regulating centrifuges, causing them to speed up so fast they destroyed themselves. That was followed by the assassinations of five important nuclear scientists, by agents of Mossad; the locating and removal back to Israel, of Iran’s entire nuclear archive; the sabotage at the nuclear facility at Natanz on two separate occasions, the first one using on-site sabotage to cause an explosion,, the second caused by cyberwarriors managing to cut the electric grid and its backup. And there have also been dozens of “mysterious explosions” and “unexplained accidents” that have hit Iranian power plants, rocket and drone production facilities, petrochemical plants, oil refineries, which damage Iran’s industrial base and its conventional weaponry, and keep Iranian leaders rattled.

But eventually, if Iran, despite all these spectacularly inventive attacks by Mossad and the IDF, nonetheless comes ever closer to becoming a nuclear power, Israel will likely have to make a pre-emptive strike. And in case there are those who, like Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan in 1973, argue for “restraint,” believing it more important to keep the good opinion of the world than to strike first against a mortal threat to its existence, let them consider carefully the price Israel paid in lives for such hesitancy in 1973. And imagine the thousand times more Israeli victims there would be than in the Yom Kippur War, should Iran manage to send even one nuclear warhead into the Jewish state. Israel must do what it must, strike first, and devastatingly, and ignore the “good opinion” of others which, in any case, given the power of Palestinian propaganda and of antisemitism, is not going to be forthcoming from most of the world, no matter what Israel does or fails to do.

 

Hugh Fitzgerald

Source: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/06/the-lessons-of-the-yom-kippur-war-pre-emptive-strikes-and-iran

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Effect of Communist China on America's Clean Energy Plan - Judith Bergman

 

by Judith Bergman

[E]xtracting the materials is a difficult and highly polluting process that China was willing to take on.... "making it practically impossible for competing companies outside China to get a foothold"

• "[I]t is as if the Middle East not only sat on most of the world's oil but also, almost exclusively, refined it and then made products out of it," wrote The Economist in 2019.

• It is not that rare earth materials do not exist outside of China, although it sits on the largest quantity: approximately 30-40% of all known rare earth deposits. Rather, extracting the materials is a difficult and highly polluting process that China was willing to take on.... "making it practically impossible for competing companies outside China to get a foothold," according to the Danish Institute for International Studies.

• China's de facto monopoly forms an acute problem: international reliance on them could hamper vital industries and national security at a time of maximum competition between China and the US.

• In February, the Financial Times reported that China was looking into export curbs on rare earth materials that are key to the US defense industry, such as the F-35. "The government wants to know if the US may have trouble making F-35 fighter jets if China imposes an export ban." — Chinese government adviser to the Financial Times.

• On April 16, however, after elections that were de facto a referendum on the Chinese plans to mine not just for rare earth materials, but also for uranium, a new Greenland government came to power, which vowed that it "will do everything we can to stop the Kvanefjeld project." Greenland's new government may impact not only China's hopes for mining there, but also those of other countries hoping to break free of the rare earth dependency on China.

• The London-based Polar Research and Policy Initiative, recommended in March that the "Five Eyes" alliance, an intelligence-sharing group comprised of Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, set its sights on Greenland's rare earths.

• Wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles all rely on rare earth materials and China has a head start that can be measured in decades, when it comes to producing the various products of which they form a crucial part: More than 60% of the world's solar panels... are made in China....

• There is also a human rights aspect to the issue: Polysilicon is produced in Xinjiang, where China is accused of using forced labor in the production chains, because -- ironically -- heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius is required to make the material, and Xinjiang has an abundance of cheap coal power.

• "It will cost us more than the Chinese to produce solar cells," said Tom Duesterberg, former Commerce Department assistant secretary under President George H.W. Bush. "We could agree to pay that price, but it will be more expensive and take a long time. If tensions get bad with China, they've proven in the past that they are willing to cut off supplies."

• China is also the world's largest producer of electric vehicles. "China is projected to produce around 13 million battery electric vehicles... by 2023, more than any other nation in the world. China's estimated production level is also anticipated to exceed the combined output of other large markets, including the United States.... Biden's plan could therefore end up boosting China's green energy industry even more.

China's de facto monopoly on rare earth materials forms an acute problem: international reliance on them could hamper vital industries and national security at a time of maximum competition between China and the US. In February, the Financial Times reported that China was looking into export curbs on rare earth materials that are key to the US defense industry, such as the F-35. Pictured: Mined ore containing rare earth materials on display in Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China. (Image source: Brücke-Osteuropa/Wikimedia Commons)

"The Middle East has oil, China has rare earths", Deng Xiaoping said in 1992. Nearly three decades later, the world is almost completely dependent on China for rare earth materials. They constitute key elements in large swaths of modern technology from consumer electronics to military equipment and green technology: Mobile phones, computers, fighter jets, guided missiles, solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles, among others. While demand is soaring, China is virtually their worldwide exclusive producer. "To extend Mr Deng's comparison, it is as if the Middle East not only sat on most of the world's oil but also, almost exclusively, refined it and then made products out of it," wrote The Economist in 2019.

"NATO's import dependency on China's rare earths is nearly 100 percent," according to a 2020 NATO report on energy security. An US Navy Virginia-class submarine, for instance, requires about four tons of rare earth materials, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer more than two tons, and an F-35 fighter jet more than 400 kilograms.

"China mines over 70% of the world's rare earths," noted Alistair MacDonald in the Wall Street Journal, "and is responsible for 90% of the complex process of turning them into magnets."

It was not always like that. "Up until 1980, 99 percent of the world's heavy REs [Rare Earths] were a byproduct of U.S. mining operations for titanium, zircon, and phosphate. In fact, it was only because of changes in U.S. regulations, the voluntary transfer of expertise and intellectual property, and the absence of an industrial policy that China has been able to corner this market," wrote Foreign Policy in October 2020.

It is not that rare earth materials do not exist outside of China, although it sits on the largest quantity: approximately 30-40% of all known rare earth deposits. Rather, extracting the materials is a difficult and highly polluting process that China was willing to take on. According to the Danish Institute for International Studies:

"China today has the expertise, IP rights and production facilities, as well as its own REE- [rare earth elements] consuming industries. China also manufactures a significant and growing share of goods containing REEs, making it practically impossible for competing companies outside China to get a foothold."

China's de facto monopoly forms an acute problem: international reliance on them could hamper vital industries and national security at a time of maximum competition between China and the US. In February, the Financial Times reported that China was looking into export curbs on rare earth materials that are key to the US defense industry, such as the F-35. "The government wants to know if the US may have trouble making F-35 fighter jets if China imposes an export ban," a Chinese government adviser told the Financial Times. "Industry executives added that Beijing wanted to better understand how quickly the US could secure alternative sources of rare earths and increase its own production capacity." In 2010, following a dispute over Japan's detention of a Chinese fishing trawler captain, China blocked rare earth material exports to Japan.

China has classified its rare earth materials industry as strategic and seems intent on maintaining its edge. "China has locked up resources even beyond its borders, buying mining rights in Africa and South America and solar manufacturers in Malaysia," Politico reported in January. China has also been looking northwards, to the Arctic. Greenland, for instance, is believed to hold the world's largest undeveloped deposits of rare earth materials, and China has invested in rare earth mining in Greenland, known as the Kvanefjeld project, through a China-backed Australian company, Greenland Minerals. On April 16, however, after elections that were de facto a referendum on the Chinese plans to mine not just for rare earth materials, but also for uranium, a new Greenland government came to power, which vowed that it "will do everything we can to stop the Kvanefjeld project."

Greenland's new government may impact not only China's hopes for mining there, but also those of other countries hoping to break free of the rare earth dependency on China. The London-based Polar Research and Policy Initiative recommended in March that the "Five Eyes" alliance, an intelligence-sharing group comprised of Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, set its sights on Greenland's rare earths. "Greenland's vast critical minerals reserves and the sheer number of British, Canadian and Australian companies operating in Greenland make it a new frontier for Five Eyes," the report said.

The reliance on Chinese rare earth materials has come even more into focus recently because of US President Joe Biden's new infrastructure plan, which includes the building of clean energy infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions. The purpose is apparently to shift the US from the use of fossil fuels and instead grow the amount of solar, wind and other renewable energy used to power American homes, businesses and factories. Another of Biden's proposals is to spend $174 billion to boost the electric vehicle market and shift away from gas-powered cars.

Wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles all rely on rare earth materials and China has a head start that can be measured in decades when it comes to producing the various products of which they form a crucial part: More than 60% of the world's solar panels, for example, are made in China. Forty-five percent of the global supply of solar-grade polysilicon, the base material used in solar cells, is made in China. There is also a human rights aspect to the issue: Polysilicon is produced in Xinjiang, where China is accused of using forced labor in the production chains, because -- ironically -- heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius is required to make the material, and Xinjiang has an abundance of cheap coal power. "It will cost us more than the Chinese to produce solar cells," said Tom Duesterberg, a former Commerce Department assistant secretary under President George H.W. Bush. "We could agree to pay that price, but it will be more expensive and take a long time. If tensions get bad with China, they've proven in the past that they are willing to cut off supplies."

Even though Biden's plan offers subsidies to automakers to get them to build electric vehicles and batteries in the United States, China is by far the world's largest producer of electric vehicles. According to Statista:

"China is projected to produce around 13 million battery electric vehicles (BEV) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) by 2023, more than any other nation in the world. China's estimated production level is also anticipated to exceed the combined output of other large markets, including the United States, Germany, and Japan."

Biden's plan could therefore end up boosting China's green energy industry even more.

The issue is critical, especially because China has such a tremendous edge in the rare earths market already. "For these minerals to go from a hole in the ground to an electric motor, you need vast skills and expertise, which barely exist out of China," Constantine Karayannopoulos, chief executive of Neo Performance Materials ULC, one of a few Western companies able to process rare earths and make magnets told the Wall Street Journal. "Many producers will find it difficult to compete head-to-head against China on price without some level of ongoing government assistance."

"It will take two decades or tens and tens of billions of dollars [for the West] to get even close to China", said Pini Althaus, chief executive of USA Rare Earth LLC.

• Follow Judith Bergman on Twitter

 

Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17335/china-rare-earth-materials

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Jews may be realizing that the Democrat party is not their friend - Andrea Widburg

 

by Andrea Widburg

What my Jewish friends are slowly being forced to face is that the Democrat party is the one providing tanks of oxygen to anti-Semitism, and turning each college, university, city, and county that votes Democrat into a safe harbor for the haters.

I have access to a Facebook group composed of strongly Democrat-voting Jewish Zionists.  It has been fascinating over the past six months watching them coming to come to terms with the fact that, no matter how much Democrats talk about "white supremacists," the only hatred for Jews and Israel is coming from people affiliated with the Democrat party.  This problem has accelerated for them in the wake of the recent fighting between Israel and her genocidal neighbors.

When I scroll through the Facebook page, more and more, these Zionist Democrats are posting things from conservative sites about the rising anti-Semitism in America or being forced to confront anti-Semitism in often celebrated members of their political party. Here's a sampling of what's they've posted about in just the past few days:

• The accusation that progressivism caused the media to ignore entirely the anniversary of Israel's Six-Day War
• Concern about the rising anti-Semitism in San Francisco, a city governed from the left.
• A Jewish Journal takedown of John Oliver for his attack against Israel.  Oliver is a darling of Democrats.
• Thane Rosenbaum's attack on progressive politics with its relentless hatred for Israel and its strong support for an Arab people who oppose every progressive belief in America.
• Kitty Hoffman's list of signs that anti-Semitism has long been rising in America, with many items on her list targeting ideas intrinsic to Critical Race Theory.  By citing this, Zionist Democrats are forced to confront the fact that the Democrats' support for CRT provides a foundation for anti-Semitism.
• A Forward article castigating leftist — and New York Times darling — Thomas Friedman for being dangerously wrong about Israel.
• A challenge to the fact that the United Teachers of Los Angeles (the same leftist group that refused to return to the classroom) has suddenly weighed in on the Middle East conflict — against Israel, of course.
• An open letter to another New York Times darling, Nicholas Kristof, attacking his anti-Israel positions.
• An article describing how anti-Semitic Britain's Labor Party is.
• The forum at which Bret Stephens, Bari Weiss, and Simone Rodan-Benzaquen talked about the mainstreaming of anti-Semitism, a talk that necessarily implicated the Democrats and that addressed the rising tide of minority anti-Semitism.
• Daniel Greenfield's incredibly disturbing article about the anti-Semitism taking over Jewish studies.  Greenfield, for those who don't know, is a deeply conservative Orthodox Jew (and one of the best writers on the internet).
• The conservative Gatestone Institute's article about the myriad problems with Biden's desperation to rejoin the Iran deal.
• Pompeo's strong words about the Buhari government, which has done nothing to protect the 1,500 Christians slaughtered in the past six months.  (And surely my Democrat friends realize that the Biden administration has been silent.)

Several of them posted with approval Kathryn Wolf's The Screamers, in which she explained that, beginning in 2019, she was trying hard to counter rising anti-Semitism in Durham, North Carolina (a city that gave over 80% of its votes to Joe Biden).  Nobody in the Jewish community (which gave over 77% of its votes to Biden) wanted to acknowledge this problem.  And since then, she says, anti-Semitism is exploding — and every place she named (New York City, Alameda County, Columbia University, Brown University) is a Democrat redoubt.  Her point was that, at least in the circles in which she travels, if you're a Jew who fears anti-Semitism in America, "The cavalry is not coming.  We are the cavalry."  In other words, your fellow Democrats will not save you when the anti-Semitic mob beats down your door.

These Zionist Jews were deeply upset a few days ago at the way Rep. Ilhan Omar put out a tweet accusing Israel of "crimes against humanity" and the perpetrators of "unthinkable atrocities."  Yesterday, though, they were pleased that the House's Democrat leadership issued a legitimately good statement about Ilhan Omar's deplorable equivalency:

However, what my Jewish friends didn't mention is that only 12 Democrats out of the total of 219 Democrats in the House joined in.

On June 1, Joe Biden, the man my friends, like 77% of their co-religionists, desperately wanted in the White House, spoke in Tulsa.  Although his focus was primarily on Blacks, he managed to throw in a nod to "the various hate crimes against Asian Americans and Jewish Americans."  And then Biden said something that made sense:

I didn't realize hate is never defeated; it only hides.  It hides.  And given a little bit of oxygen — just a little bit oxygen — by its leaders, it comes out of there from under the rock like it was happening again, as if it never went away. And so, folks, we can't — we must not give hate a safe harbor.

What my Jewish friends are slowly being forced to face is that the Democrat party is the one providing tanks of oxygen to anti-Semitism, and turning each college, university, city, and county that votes Democrat into a safe harbor for the haters.

Images: Jews for Biden event poster.  Jewish Democrats.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.

 

Andrea Widburg

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/06/jews_may_be_realizing_that_the_democrat_party_is_not_their_friend.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Great Unravelling - Caroline Glick

 

by Caroline Glick

Unfortunately, it is likely that all Israel achieved through painstaking effort may be lost after the new governing coalition led by Yair Lapid takes power next week.

 

Over the past decade, for the first time in its history, Israel developed a strong diplomatic posture in the region and worldwide. Israel developed strategic ties with Arab states, and the states of the eastern Mediterranean. It has built close ties with the EU’s Visegrád Group of central European states Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic as well as Austria and Italy. Israel upgraded its diplomatic and trade relations with the states of Africa and Central and South America, as well as with India, Japan and South Korea.

Unfortunately, it is likely that all Israel achieved through painstaking effort may be lost after the new governing coalition led by Yair Lapid takes power next week. This is the case for three reasons.

First, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the author of Israel’s diplomatic triumphs. They are predicated on his foreign policy vision that diplomatic ties are built on common interests even more than ideology and that Israel has much to offer the nations of the world.

There are many things that divide the members of the incoming governing coalition. But they agree on one thing – they all hate Netanyahu. So, the first reason Israel may soon abandon its diplomatic achievements is because Lapid and most of his partners in the coalition want to erase Netanyahu’s accomplishments.

The second reason Israel’s diplomatic position is likely to soon crash is because Lapid and Defense Minister Benny Gantz along with most of their partners do not share Netanyahu’s diplomatic vision. Lapid is set to become foreign minister. Lapid, Gantz and the rest of the members of the incoming coalition are members of Israel’s elite class. Israel’s elite encompasses the political left, the media, the senior brass of the security establishment and the senior leadership of the foreign and justice ministries and right wingers who prefer their company and plaudits to those of members of their own camp. Israel’s elites, almost to the man believe Israel’s diplomatic position is exclusively a function of its relations with the Beltway establishment. The closer Israel is to the American ruling class, the stronger it is internationally. The weaker Israel’s relations with the American elite, the weaker its international posture.

The third reason Israel’s decade of diplomatic achievements is likely to end in short order is that as America-obsessed elitists, Lapid, Gantz and their ilk don’t understand the importance or potential of what Netanyahu has accomplished. They will not dedicate the necessary resources to maintain the ties he forged with the likes of Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz or Brazil’s President Javier Bolsonaro, because they don’t value those ties. So the ties will wither.

This then brings us to Washington, the only place that matters for the incoming cabinet ministers.

On Monday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken testified before House and Senate committees. His remarks showed that just as Lapid and his colleagues are set to tear down Netanyahu’s legacy, US President Joe Biden, Blinken and their advisors have taken an industrial-sized eraser to Donald Trump’s policies and achievements in the Middle East.

Take the Golan Heights. In 2019, Trump recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the strategic enclave along its borders with Syria and Jordan. When asked whether the Biden administration also recognizes Israel’s sovereignty, Blinken responded, “As a practical matter, Israel has control of the Golan Heights, irrespective of its legal status, and that will have to remain unless and until things get to a point where Syria and everything operating out of Syria no longer poses a threat to Israel, and we are not anywhere near that.”

Or the shorter answer: No.

Then there’s Iran. Democrat senators on Monday joined their Republican colleagues in demanding clarifications about the administration’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran. The 2015 nuclear deal, to which the administration is committed placed temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities and in exchange, gave Iran an open road to a military nuclear capability by 2030 and $150 billion in sanctions relief. Trump abandoned the deal in 2018 because Iran was breaching the deal’s restrictions on its nuclear actions and reinstated US economic sanctions that the Obama administration lifted.

The Democrat and Republican lawmakers asked how cancelling US economic sanctions on Iran would achieve the goal of limiting Iran’s nuclear activities given that Tehran had been breaching the deal’s limitations on its nuclear activities all along. They wanted to understand why Iran would agree to longer and stronger restrictions on its nuclear work in the future, as Blinken promises, if the 2015 deal gives them an open path to the bomb. And they wanted to know if Blinken could guarantee that money from sanctions relief wouldn’t end up in the coffers of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Blinken responded to all of the questions with a non-sequitur.

“Its [Iran’s nuclear] program is galloping forward…The longer this goes on, the more the breakout time gets down…It’s now down, by public reports, to a few months at best. And if this continues, it will get down to a matter of weeks.”

Blinken’s alarmist view wasn’t a preamble to a call for military strikes against Iran’s nuclear installations or even for an announcement of a new strategy of maximum economic pressure aimed at collapsing the regime.

To the contrary, Blinken said that in light of the dimensions and urgency of the threat, the US needs to immediately return to the 2015 deal, that is, give Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief, to “put the nuclear problem in a box.”

In plain English, Blinken said that the senators’ concerns were irrelevant. The administration’s policy goal is not to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power and a regional hegemon. The administration’s goal is to be Iran’s friend.

Just days before Blinken renounced US recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and said the goal of US policy towards Iran is to be the ayatollahs’ friend even if that means letting Iran become a nuclear armed regional hegemon, he met his “friend” Benny Gantz at the State Department. Clearly the meeting made no impression on Blinken. If Gantz had hoped that “good chemistry” with the Biden crowd would make it possible for him to influence them, he was doubtlessly disappointed.

Sometime in 2014, Netanyahu realized that then president Barack Obama and his team – which is now Biden’s team – had no intention of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear armed hegemonic power. He reacted to this realization by spending the last eight yearsdeveloping an interest-based alliance with the Arab Gulf states who are also threatened by Iran.

The Trump administration welcomed this alliance. The Biden administration is so hostile to it that Biden opened an offensive against Saudi Arabia immediately after he entered office. The administration refuses to call the Abraham Accords by their name. And during Hamas’ recent mini-war against Israel, the administration reportedly pressured Abraham Accords member states the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco to condemn Israel’s efforts to destroy Hamas’s missile capabilities. There is no doubt that Netanyahu spent long hours working to ensure that no such condemnations were made.

Facing the administration’s visceral hostility to Israel’s ties with the Sunni Arab states, Lapid, Gantz and their colleagues be far less likely to move heaven and earth to maintain them.

Then there’s Jerusalem. On Monday, 16 Republican senators signed a letter to Biden expressing their opposition to the administration’s plan to open a consulate in Jerusalem for the Palestinian Authority and to reopen the PLO’s representative office in Washington. The explained that Trump closed the consulate as required by the Jerusalem Embassy Act. He closed the PLO office in DC because it operated in breach of the Promoting Justice and Security for Victims of Terrorism Act, otherwise known as the Taylor Force act. Opening a consulate in Jerusalem and reopening the PLO office in Washington would both be contrary to US law, they noted.

While the senators were doubtlessly right, the administration is committed to following through on its plan. The only way Biden and his advisors may feel compelled to change course is if their efforts are beset with trenchant opposition.

It won’t get any from Lapid’s coalition. Labor leader and incoming transportation minister Merav Michaeli said this week she intends to cancel 1.5 billion shekels ($462 million) now budgeted for improving roads in Judea and Samaria. Ra’am leader Mansour Abbas is ideologically aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. Not only will he not oppose opening a consulate to the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem, he might attend the opening of a US diplomatic mission in Israel’s capital that is dedicated to serving Israel’s Palestinian enemies.

One of Israel’s greatest diplomatic assets in recent years has been the close ties it cultivated with EU member states led by nationalist leaders. Time after time, these leaders blocked efforts by the EU leadership in Brussels to condemn Israel.

The leader who has done the most to block EU condemnations of Israel has been Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

The most outspoken critic of ties between Jerusalem and Budapest has been Lapid. When Orbán came to Israel on an official visit, Lapid referred to event as a “national disgrace,” because Orbán has expressed admiration for Hungary’s wartime leader and Nazi collaborator Admiral Horthy. Like the heads of the US Jewish community with whom he is closely allied, Lapid is deeply hostile to European nationalist leaders despite their enthusiastic support for Israel. As foreign minister, Lapid is likely to harpoon Israel’s ties to the Visegrád Group and so destroy Israel’s ability to prevent EU condemnations of Israel.

What about Naftali Bennett? Where will the prime minister designate be in all of this? Even in the unlikely event that Bennett will want to maintain Netanyahu’s policies, he won’t have the power to do so. Although in theory the government is supposed to give equal weight to its right and left wing members, it is hard to see how this will manifest itself in practice. Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu party is still considered a right-wing party. But Lieberman has adopted the left’s positions on nearly every issue. It is hard to imagine that he would side with Bennett on anything controversial, particularly if it involves maintaining Netanyahu’s legacy. And even if Liberman sides with Bennett, they won’t have the power to force Lapid to do anything he doesn’t want to do. At best, they will be able to block him from doing some things that they don’t want him to do.

If Bennett decides to act independently as prime minister on behalf of Jerusalem, or the Golan Heights, or blocking Iran from getting the bomb or anything at all that Lapid and the Left oppose, he will find himself raked over the coals by his coalition partners and the media. Without a political base, Bennett – like his fellow right-winger New Hope Party leader Gideon Sa’ar – will quickly be presented with two options. He can either adopt the ideological positions of the left, as Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni and Ariel Sharon did before him, or he can bring down the government and leave public life.

It has taken the Biden administration less than six months to unravel Trump’s achievements in Israel and the wider Middle East. We can expect the incoming government to unravel Israel’s diplomatic position on their first day in power.

Originally published in Israel Hayom.

 

Caroline Glick

Source: https://carolineglick.com/the-great-unravelling/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Critical Race Theory Is Not Compatible With Christianity. Churches Must Say So - Robert Spencer

 

by Robert Spencer

A confused tale of saints and sinners

My latest in PJ Media:

Critical Race Theory is as an indictment of the United States as a systemically-racist society, but it is also something worse: an all-encompassing worldview, a guiding life philosophy that purports to explain the world in a staggeringly simple manner. With racism, slavery, imperialism, colonialism, and more, white people have inflicted incalculable harm on the world, and in fact are the source of evil in the world. The Nation of Islam has expressed this with devastating succinctness for decades, using the chillingly direct phrase, “The white man is the devil.” With officials all over the country pushing Critical Race Theory upon us in our schools and workplaces, the Nation of Islam is quickly becoming the de facto official religion of the United States. This makes the question all the more urgent: why haven’t the churches condemned it?

The immediate answer is, of course, that the churches are no longer in the business of condemning heresies; that went out around the time the United States stopped fighting wars in order to win them. But nevertheless, Critical Race Theory is a heresy, and one that directly contradicts a core Christian doctrine. Americans are far less Christian than they used to be, but this is one Christian doctrine that is readily verifiable by mountains of empirical evidence: the idea that no one is perfect or behaves perfectly all the time, but “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

The toweringly courageous Soviet dissident Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, a devout Orthodox Christian and an enduring hero of freedom, expressed the same idea in this way: “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

When Solzhenitsyn said this, it was taken for granted as axiomatic all over the West, among Christians and non-Christians alike. But now it is being forgotten or rejected with jaw-dropping rapidity. The underlying assumption of Critical Race Theory is that there are evil people who are insidiously committing evil deeds, and they are the white people. Racism, or whiteness, is the original sin. This sin manifests itself in all sorts of “systemic” ways, most notably in the alleged police double standard for blacks and whites. In Christian thought, Jesus submitted to death in order to destroy it and enable human beings to enjoy eternal life; now (as Nancy Pelosi recently suggested) George Floyd submitted to racism and police brutality in order to destroy them and enable Americans to enjoy racial justice. Now what remains is to separate the white people from other people and destroy them. Then the non-white world can enter into the messianic age of redemption, with evil eradicated from the planet.

There is more. Read the rest here.

 

Robert Spencer

Source: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/06/critical-race-theory-is-not-compatible-with-christianity-churches-must-say-so

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

UK: Smash the Muslim patriarchy - Joshua Winston

 

by Joshua Winston

[T]he institutional rape of non-Muslim girls didn’t resonate with today’s feminists.

The only patriarchy the UK has to worry about is the Islamic one. It feels repetitive to continue talking about it, since most of the Muslim rapists are still walking the streets still grooming, raping, and terrorising their old victims together with new ones, but the institutional rape of non-Muslim girls didn’t resonate with today’s feminists. We can speculate as to why that might be – these women tend to be educated and middle-class, and therefore they will never experience the life of a neglected 12-year-old from a broken home who is being drugged, beaten, raped and trafficked by Muslim men in the very towns these feminists also live in, and next to the hipster venues they frequent. They’ll never know either quite what it’s like to be a Muslim teenage girl on the verge of womanhood, living in the UK and excited about all of the prospects and freedoms that lie before her, only to be restrained by the confines of religious and cultural practices that are not compatible with the UK’s. These women can’t quite put themselves in those girls’ shoes, although these women ask us to put ourselves in their shoes as they demand not to be shamed for being sex-workers, or for aborting multiple babies and then making gleeful TikTok videos about the killings.

The murder of Sarah Everard brought the feminists to the streets because the culprit was a white non-Muslim male. The same feminists stayed indoors, or continued sipping cocktails at their trendy bars and verbally bashing the white patriarchy when new arrival Muhammed Mahfooz raped and battered and used a woman “like an animal” for over an hour (the same time it might take for a feminist to finish off a cosmopolitan or a crafted beer). They continued doing whatever it was they were doing when Banaz Mahmod was honour-killed by her family. Their silence continued when Laura Wilson was killed by her Muslim boyfriend for the shame that being in a relationship with a non-Muslim girl would bring to his family. The reader is urged to do a simple Internet search on “Muhammad rapes” or “UK honour killings,” and scroll through all the articles. There are too many for me to list in order to further establish my point here.

Feminists in the UK claim not to be able to walk the streets at night for fear of being raped. Even the actress Kiera Knightley has come out to say that every woman has experienced harassment in the streets, claiming that the harassment comes in the form of being flashed, groped, or in the form of threats to slit a woman’s throat. She’s a multi-millionaire and she doesn’t live in Rotherham. The streets of her wealthy suburb must surely be going to the dogs if this is her “lived experience.”

There are countless women, most of them Muslim, who are trapped in arranged marriages in the UK today, in fear of their lives, with no chance of escape, living under threats of violence. Forget about not being able to walk the streets at night, which these women can’t do, at least not without a male chaperone. These women live in fear as they walk the floorboards of their bedrooms, living rooms, and kitchens in their own homes. Again, feminists are silent on the issue. Think of these women in marriages where rape isn’t a notion, where the woman has no right to say no to a man’s demands for sex. Forced into first-cousin marriages with no say in the matter, and this means nothing to UK feminists. The offspring from these marriages in which, through successive generations, first cousins have been breeding with each other and producing children with gene disorders, doesn’t tug on the heartstrings of feminists, either. Some of these offspring will be female. Do the lives of these girls not matter to feminists?

55% of Pakistani-heritage women in the UK are in forced, first-cousin marriages and are made to produce offspring that are all too often disabled, stillborn, or who will die in early infancy. The mutations these babies are born with will only get worse with each successive first cousin coupling. The gene-pool tightens with every sharia blessing. This marriage slavery should be of concern to British feminists. Why are they not outside the mosques and sharia courts like their German counterparts?

Is it fear that lies behind the silence? UK feminists are terrified of Muslim men. They are terrified of Islam. They know full well that if they were to turn up at a mosque or any Islamic building, they’d be chased off with violence. They wouldn’t be allowed to go near the gates, they’d have to disguise themselves like gay Muslim Ronnie (not his real name) did when he tried to hand out flyers at London Central Mosque. Ronnie said: “‘I am really scared.” Ronnie fled Pakistan because he wasn’t safe there. He’s not safe in London, either. He spends his days hiding and living in fear that someone in the mosque will recognise him from Pakistan. If feminists did protest at a mosque and if they weren’t immediately met with violence, they would live with the psychological fear of retribution in much the same way that battered wives and gay Ronnie do. Physical violence doesn’t come without psychological violence. UK feminists are living in an abusive relationship with Islam on our shores. Islam is the husband they can’t speak up against, and whom they can’t divorce, leave, confront or disobey.

The murder of Sarah Everard was brutal, but it was no less brutal than the murders of Saeeda Hussain or Sana Muhammad or Mayra Zulfiquar or countless other women in the UK. I guarantee you that not one feminist today could “say their names,” as they instruct us to do in relation to Sarah, in connection with Saeeda or Sana or Mayra. Feminists aren’t out protesting about these women’s deaths, because it was Muslim men who killed them. Muslim women in the UK are being killed for not marrying the man of their father’s choosing, while liberal feminists are screaming into a void about the most trivial issues, such as right to post footage of them having multiple abortions as a TikTok craze, and to prostitute their way through university.

 

Joshua Winston

Source: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/06/uk-smash-the-muslim-patriarchy

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter