Saturday, November 12, 2016

The Communists Behind the Anti-Trump Protests - John Perazzo

by John Perazzo

The post-election demonstrations against Trump are being orchestrated by socialists and Marxists.

Ever since Donald Trump's election victory Tuesday night, the media have been abuzz with stories about massive, sometimes violent, anti-Trump protests breaking out in cities all across the country. We've been told that ordinary Americans everywhere are so frightened and angered by the prospect of a Trump presidency—as opposed to a Hillary Clinton presidency—that they're taking to the streets to express their grave concerns for the future of the country.

In Chicago, for instance, thousands of people held an “emergency protest” outside a Trump hotel, chanting: “No Trump, No KKK, No Fascist USA!”

In New York, some 5,000 people (including the political oracle Lady Gaga) demonstrated outside Trump Tower. “Their concerns,” said CNN, “ranged from policies, such as Trump's proposed plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, to the polarizing tenor of his campaign that they say stoked xenophobic fears.”

In Oakland, some of the 7,000+ demonstrators damaged police cars, vandalized businesses, hurled Molotov cocktails and rocks at law-enforcement officers, and started at least 40 separate fires.

And in Los Angeles, more than 1,000 people filled the streets, burned Trump in effigy, and sang John Lennon's Give Peace a Chance. “Several protesters said they feared that family or friends might be deported once Trump takes office,” said CNN.

From reading the various mainstream media accounts of these events, one comes away with the distinct impression that they are grassroots actions that began organically among ordinary, concerned, well-meaning citizens.

But alas, if one were to think that, one would be wrong.

Contrary to media misrepresentations, many of the supposedly spontaneous, organic, anti-Trump protests we have witnessed in cities from coast to coast were in fact carefully planned and orchestrated, in advance, by a pro-Communist organization called the ANSWER Coalition, which draws its name from the acronym for “Act Now to Stop War and End Racism.” ANSWER was established in 2001 by Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, a group staffed in large part by members of the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party. In 2002, the libertarian author Stephen Suleyman Schwartz described ANSWER as an “ultra-Stalinist network” whose members served as “active propaganda agents for Serbia, Iraq, and North Korea, as well as Cuba, countries they repeatedly visit and acclaim.”

Since its inception, ANSWER has consistently depicted the United States as a racist, sexist, imperialistic, militaristic nation guilty of unspeakable crimes against humanity—in other words, a wellspring of pure evil. When ANSWER became a leading organizer of the massive post-9/11 demonstrations against the Patriot Act and the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, it formed alliances with other likeminded entities such as Not In Our Name (a project of the Revolutionary Communist Party) and United For Peace and Justice (a pro-Castro group devoted to smearing America as a cesspool of bigotry and oppression).

Another key organizer of the current anti-Trump protests is a group called Socialist Alternative, which describes “the global capitalist system” as “the root cause of … poverty, discrimination, war, and environmental destruction.” Explaining that “the dictatorships that existed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were [unfortunate] perversions of what socialism is really about,” this organization calls for a happy-faced “democratic socialism where ordinary people will have control over our daily lives.”

And, lo and behold, many components of Socialist Alternative's agenda mesh seamlessly with Hillary Clinton's political priorities. For instance, Socialist Alternative seeks to: (a) “raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, as a step toward a living wage for all”; (b) provide “free [taxpayer-funded] … public education for all from pre-school through college”; (c) create “a publicly funded single-payer [healthcare] system as a step towards fully socialized medicine”; (d) impose absolutely “no budget cuts [on] education and social services”; and (e) legislate “a major increase in taxes on the rich and big business.”

In short, the anti-Trump protests that are currently making headlines are 100% contrived, fake, phony exhibitions of street theater, orchestrated entirely by radicals and revolutionaries whose chief objective is to push America ever farther to the political left. Moreover, they seek to utterly demoralize conservatives into believing that public opposition to their own (conservative) political and social values is growing more powerful, more passionate, and more widespread with each passing day.

The bottom line is this: The leaders and organizers of the anti-Trump protests that are currently making so much noise in cities across America, are faithfully following the blueprint of Hillary Clinton's famous mentor, Saul Alinsky, who urged radical activists to periodically stage loud, defiant, massive protest rallies expressing rage and discontent. Such demonstrations are designed to give onlookers the impression that a mass movement is preparing to shift into high gear, and that its present size is but a fraction of what it eventually will become. A “mass impression,” said Alinsky, can be lasting and intimidating: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.... The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

And that is precisely what we are witnessing at the moment.

John Perazzo


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Israel In The Trump Era - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

What can the Jewish State expect from a Trump administration?

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

What can we expect from President-elect Donald Trump’s administration? 

The positions that Trump struck during the presidential campaign were sometimes inconsistent and even contradictory. So it is impossible to forecast precisely what he will do in office. But not everything is shrouded in mystery. Indeed, some important characteristics of his administration are already apparent.

First of all, President Barack Obama’s legacy will die the moment he leaves the White House on January 20. Republicans may not agree on much. But Trump and his party do agree that Obama’s policies must be abandoned and replaced. And they will work together to roll back all of Obama’s actions as president.

On the domestic policy front this means first and foremost that Obamacare will be repealed and replaced with health industry reforms that open the medical insurance market to competition.

With the support of the Republican-controlled Senate, Trump will end Obama’s push to reshape the US Supreme Court in the image of the activist, indeed, authoritarian Israeli Supreme Court. During his four-year term, Trump may appoint as many as four out of nine justices. In so doing he will shape the court for the next generation. Trump made clear during the race that the justices he selects will oppose the Obama-led leftist plan to transform the court into an imperial judiciary that determines social and cultural norms and legislates from the bench.


Trump will also clean out the Internal Revenue Service. Under Obama, the IRS became an instrument of political warfare. Conservative and right-wing pro-Israel groups were systematically discriminated against and targeted for abuse. It is possible to assume that Trump will fire the IRS officials who have been involved in this discriminatory abuse of power.


To be sure, much is still unclear about Trump’s foreign policy. But here, too, certain things are already known. Trump will vacate the US’s signature from the nuclear deal with Iran.

Trump will not be able to repair the damage the deal has already caused – at least not immediately. He will not be able to reimpose the multilateral and UN Security Council sanctions on Iran that the nuclear deal canceled. Such a move will require prolonged negotiations and their conclusion is far from assured.


Trump will likewise be unable to take back the billions of dollars that Iran has already received due to the abrogation of economic sanctions and through cash payoffs from the Obama administration.


At the same time, from his first day in office, Trump will change the trajectory of US policy toward Iran. He will oppose Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. He will oppose Iran’s rise to regional hegemony.


A second conclusion that it is already possible to draw about the Trump presidency is that Trump will be much more like the hands-off Ronald Reagan than the hands-on Obama. His past as a businessman along with his lack of governmental or political experience will lead Trump to set general policy guidelines and goals and delegate responsibility for crafting suitable policies and programs to his cabinet secretaries and advisers.


This means that personnel will very much be policy in the Trump administration. Whereas Obama’s cabinet members and advisers have been more or less interchangeable since Obama himself determined everything from the details of his policies to the ways that the policies would be sold to the public (or hidden from the public), and implemented, Trump’s pick of advisers will be strategically significant.


Clearly it is too early to know who Trump’s advisers and cabinet members will be. But there is good reason for Israel to be encouraged by the advisers who have worked with Trump during the campaign.


Vice President-elect Mike Pence is one of the most pro-Israel policy-makers in America. Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is an outspoken ally of Israel and of the US-Israel alliance.


Likewise, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, former senator Rick Santorum, retired general Mike Flynn, and former UN ambassador John Bolton are all extraordinary champions of the US alliance with Israel.


Trump’s Israel affairs advisers during the campaign, David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt, are also among the strongest advocates of the US-Israel alliance who have arisen in decades.

The striking friendliness of the Trump election team is even more notable when we consider what Israel would have faced from a Hillary Clinton administration. Clinton’s cabinet in waiting at the George Soros-funded and John Podesta- run Center for American Progress contained no serious advocates of the US-Israel alliance.


And her stable of advisers were not merely indifferent to Israel.


The WikiLeaks revelations from Podesta’s emails, like the correspondences published by Judicial Watch from Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, made clear that Clinton’s team included several advisers with deep-seated hostility if not animus toward Israelis and toward the Israeli government. The third thing that is already clear about the nature of the Trump administration is that it will not hesitate to abandon received wisdom on a host of issues and initiate policies that the bipartisan policy elites wouldn’t be caught dead even talking about.

Trump’s victory was first and foremost a defeat for the American elite, what Prof. Angelo Codevilla memorably referred to as America’s “ruling class.”


Trump’s campaign did not merely target the Democratic establishment. He attacked the Republican establishment as well. True, in his victory speech Trump said that he intends to heal the rifts in American society – presumably starting with his own party. But at least one thing ought to be clear about that reunification. As the president-elect, Trump will set the terms of the healing process.


There is every reason to expect that at a minimum, Trump will not soon forgive the Republicans who refused to support and even opposed his presidential bid. Members of the Never Trump camp will be denied positions and influence over the Trump administration and sent into the political desert.


Another establishment that fell on its sword in this election is the American-Jewish establishment. Led by the Anti-Defamation League, the American-Jewish establishment, including its largest donors, stood almost as one in its support for Clinton. The members of the American- Jewish leadership placed their partisan preferences above their communal interests and responsibilities. In so doing they enfeebled the community in a manner that will be difficult to repair.


Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have antisemites in their ranks. The Jewish establishment ignored and pretended away the Democratic antisemites, even when they were burning Israeli flags at the Democratic convention. They said nothing when anti-Israel ravings that were at best borderline antisemitic of senior Clinton advisers like Thomas Pickering and Anne Marie Slaughter were published by Judicial Watch.


On the other hand, the Jewish establishment castigated Trump as antisemitic for the presence of antisemites like David Duke on the fringes of the Republican Party. Legitimate criticisms of anti-Israel financier George Soros were condemned as antisemitic while truly antisemitic assaults on Trump donor Sheldon Adelson by Clinton backers went unaddressed.

The consequence of the Jewish establishment’s almost total mobilization for Clinton is clear. 

The Trump White House won’t have an open door policy for those who falsely accused Trump of antisemitism. Jewish Americans are going to have to either oust the leaders of the groups that put their party before their community, or establish new organizations to defend their interests. Whatever path is chosen, the process of rebuilding the communal infrastructure the community’s leaders have wrecked will be long, difficult and expensive.
Unlike the American-Jewish community, for Israel, the defeat of the American establishment is a positive development. The American foreign policy elite’s default bipartisan position on Israel was bad for both Israel and for the health and reliability of its alliance with the US.

As I explained in my book The Israeli Solution – A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, there was a dismaying consistency in US policy toward Israel that ran from Bill Clinton’s administration through the George W. Bush administration and on to the Obama administration. At least since the Clinton years, the received wisdom of the American foreign policy elite has been that the US must seek to swiftly cause Israel to sign a deal with the PLO. The contours of the deal are similarly clear to all concerned. Israel must surrender control over all or most of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and transfer the areas, more or less Jew-free, to the PLO.

This bipartisan view is inherently hostile to Israel. It places all the responsibility for making peace on Israel. And as the sole responsible party, Israel is also the sole party that is guilty for the absence of peace. The flipside is similarly dismal. Palestinians are absolved of responsibility for terrorism, hatred and political warfare against Israel.

The anti-Israel hostility inherent in the two-state paradigm has brought on a situation where even pro-Israel US officials end up joining their anti-Israel colleagues in bearing down on Israel to act in ways that are inimical to both its national security and to the very concept of a US-Israel alliance. The foreign policy ruling class’s commitment to the two-state paradigm has blinded its members to Israel’s strategic importance to the US and caused them to see the US’s only stable ally in the region as a drag on US interests.

Many of Trump’s advisers, including Gingrich, who has been raised as a leading candidate to serve as either Trump’s White House chief of staff or as secretary of state, have rejected this received wisdom. In a Republican presidential debate in 2011, Gingrich referred to the Palestinians as an “invented people,” and noted that they indoctrinate their children to perceive Jews as subhuman and seek their annihilation. For his statement of fact, Gingrich was brutally assaulted by Democratic and Republican elites.

But he never rescinded his statement.

Trump’s election provides Israel with the first opportunity in 50 years to reshape its alliance with the US. This new alliance must be based on a common understanding and respect for what Israel has to offer the US as well as on the limits of what the US can offer Israel. The limits of US assistance are in large part the consequences of the many genies that Obama unleashed during the past eight years. And the opportunities will come more in areas related to Israel’s relations with the Palestinians and the political war being waged against it by the Europeans and the international Left than to the challenges posed by the ascendance of Islamism in the Middle East.

To be sure, Trump is inconsistent. But from what we do know we must recognize that his rise marks a deflection point in US history.

It is a rare moment where things that were unimaginable a month ago are possible. And if we play our cards right, like the American people, Israel stands to gain in ways we never dreamed of.

Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

5 Ways Trump Shows How to Win Elections - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

The future belongs to Republicans who care more about their voters than the media.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

What can Republicans learn from Trump’s victory? The biggest lesson is that the old way of politics is dead. McCain and Romney showed that twice. Now Trump has shown how Republicans can actually win.

1. Find Your Natural Base

The GOP is ashamed of its base. It doesn’t like being associated with the very voters who made 2016 happen. Its autopsy last time around searched for ways to leave the white working class behind.

There’s a party that did that. Their symbol is a jackass.  They just lost big because they ran out of working class white voters.

The Democrats have tried to manufacture their base using immigration, victimhood politics and identity politics. The GOP has wasted far too much time trying to compete on the same playing field while neglecting its base. Trump won by doing what the GOP could have done all along if its leadership hadn’t been too ashamed to talk to people it considered low class because they shop at WalMart.

The GOP wanted a better image. It cringed at Trump’s red caps and his rallies. And they worked.

Trump won because he found the neglected base of working class white voters who had been left behind. He didn’t care about looking uncool by courting them. Instead he threw himself into it.

That’s why McCain and Romney lost. It’s why Bush and Trump won.

The GOP is not the cool party. It’s never going to be. It’s the party of the people who have been shut out, stepped on and kicked around by the cool people. Trump understood that. The GOP didn’t.

The GOP’s urban elites would like to create an imaginary cool party that would be just like the Democrats, but with fiscally conservative principles. That party can’t and won’t exist.

You can run with the base you have. Or you can lose.

2. Media and Celebrities Don’t Matter

The first rule of Republican politics is to look in the mirror and ask, “Are we trying to be Democrats?”

Twice Obama’s big glittering machine of celebrities, media and memes rolled over hapless Republicans. Republican operatives desperately wondered how they could run against Oprah, Beyonce and BuzzFeed. How were they supposed to survive being mocked by Saturday Night Live and attacked by the media?

The answer was to find voters who weren’t making their decisions based on any of those things.

The GOP’s approach in the last few elections was to try and duplicate the Obama machine. These efforts were clumsy, awkward, expensive and stupid. The Obama machine was great at influencing its target electorate of urban and suburban millennial college grads because that’s who ran it and directed it. But that’s not the Republican base. And chasing it was a waste of time, money and energy.

Instead of trying to duplicate the Obama machine, the Trump campaign targeted a class of voters who didn’t care about those things. The white working class that turned out for Trump was a world away from the cultural obsessions of the urban elites who had traditionally shaped both sets of campaigns.

Romney wanted everyone to like him. Being rejected hurt him so much because he wanted to be accepted. Trump ran as an outsider. Being rejected by the establishment was a badge of pride. He couldn’t be humiliated by being mocked by the cool kids because he wasn’t trying to be accepted.

Asking, “Are we trying to be Democrats?” isn’t just for policy. It’s also something for Republicans to remember when Election Day comes around. The Republican base isn’t the Democrat base. When Republicans commit to pursuing their base, they can stop worrying about what Saturday Night Live, Samantha Bee and random celebrities think of them. And they can just be themselves.

The mediasphere matters most when you care about it. When you don’t and when you focus on voters who don’t either, then it ends up as weak and impotent as it did in this election.

3. Go Right Young Man

Hillary Clinton’s campaign with its efforts to appeal to Republicans was a master class in triangulation. The Clintons were radicals who wanted to appear moderate. In the final weeks, Hillary’s people got out their brushes and makeup kits and tried to make her over into a candidate anyone could vote for.

But triangulation doesn’t work anymore.

Even before Trump, Bernie Sanders nearly derailed her by running as an unapologetic leftist. Hillary Clinton borrowed much of the structure of the Obama campaign, but missed its biggest feature.

Obama was much closer to Bernie Sanders than to Bill Clinton. He promised to destroy coal jobs, defended wealth redistribution and turned “You didn’t build that” into his mantra. It was a long way from Hillary’s ultra-cautious campaign. And it worked. Obama’s left-wing base turned out for him.

Trump won by unapologetically going to the right and infuriating the left. And it also worked.

Hillary hired plenty of Obama’s people, but it was Trump who had truly learned the lesson of Obama’s victories. American elections are no longer won by going to the center. Some of the most endangered senators had been centrists. The Republican moderate strategy cost them two presidential elections.

The radical left has polarized the country. Chasing the center is a dead end. Instead you champion your base. You promise them everything they want. You make them love you. And you win.

Instead of retreating, you double down. It doesn’t matter what everyone else thinks of you. If your base loves you and will stand for hours waiting to hear from you, they will do that on Election Day.

It worked for Obama. It worked for Trump.

4. Money Doesn’t Matter

What do Krispy Kreme, Costco and Donald Trump have in common? They don’t advertise.

When you have a compelling enough product, then you don’t need to advertise. You will be talked about and the customers will want to know more about you.

You still need money to win presidential elections, but you need a lot less money than the consultants and experts would like you to think that you do. Trump spent a lot less than Hillary Clinton did.

Ad budgets have ballooned, but the impact of advertising in the age of the smartphone is shakier than ever. Ads for national candidates have far less impact than their public presence in the reality show of life. Far more Americans followed Hillary’s health crisis than watched all of her ads combined.

Trump was unafraid to benefit from gobs of media coverage. Even when it was mostly negative. Meanwhile Hillary avoided engaging with the media while spending a fortune on advertising. It was an expensive and outdated approach that didn’t work for her during the primaries or the general election.

The Trump campaign didn’t repeat Romney’s mistake of spending a fortune on consultants. Hillary Clinton did. It’s usually the unnatural candidate, the politician least comfortable in his own skin, who makes that mistake. Instead Trump spent money on the practicals, like the ground game, he paid more attention to local ads than to national ads. And he didn’t make the common mistake of believing he could buy the election. It’s not how he had won the nomination. It’s not how he won the election.

5. Controversy Works

Trump’s campaign was declared dead more often than disco. None of the scandals worked. None of the outrage stopped him. Instead it helped him win. Every downturn in the polls preceded another upturn.

If you’re running as a consensus candidate, a scandal can destroy you. But if you’re running against the system, then scandals only make you stronger. Each attack on Trump gave him credibility. It defined him as a politician who wasn’t part of the system. And none of Trump’s critics understood that by attacking him they were only helping him win. They couldn’t stop this compulsive behavior even when it didn’t work. Surely the next scandal was the one that would finally and permanently do Trump in.

Even now they’re still thinking that way.

Traditional campaigns are run by professionals who see their job as avoiding controversy. Candidates are schooled not to offend anyone. But if you don’t offend anyone, you also don’t inspire anyone.

Inspiration without controversy is a fridge magnet. In politics to inspire, you must be controversial.

Controversy made Trump a national and then an international figure. The more an establishment attacked him, the more he was seen as a savior by its enemies. Controversy, more than anything else, made him a change candidate. Trump wasn’t Teflon. He didn’t survive attacks the way Bill Clinton did. Instead he thrived on them until he became the voice of millions of angry Americans.

Controversy isn’t something to be feared. It’s something to be embraced.


In the years ahead, consultants and experts will insist that Trump’s campaign was a fluke that nothing can be learned from. They will argue that the old failed way of politics is best. But the old way of politics is dead. The future belongs to Republicans who listen to their base instead of their consultants.

The future belongs to Republicans who care more about what their supporters think of them than what the media does.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Europe's Planned Migrant Revolution - Yves Mamou

by Yves Mamou

Two essential questions about integration must be put on the table: 1) What do we ask of newcomers? And 2) What do we do to those who do not accept our conditions?

  • Between 2005 to 2014, Germany welcomed more than 6,000,000 people.
  • Two essential questions about integration must be put on the table: 1) What do we ask of newcomers? And 2) What do we do to those who do not accept our conditions? In Europe, these two questions of integration were never asked of anyone.
  • In the new migrant order, the host population is invited to make room for the newcomer and bear the burden not of what is an "integration," but the acceptance of a coerced coexistence.
  • "No privileges are granted to the Europeans or to their heritage. All cultures have the same citizenship. There is no recognition of a substantial European culture that it might be useful to preserve." — Michèle Tribalat, sociologist and demographer.
  • "We need people that we welcome to love France." — French Archbishop Pontier, Le Monde, October 2016.
  • When "good feelings" did not work, however, the authorities have often criminalized and prosecuted anti-immigration critics. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders is currently on trial for trying to defend his country from Moroccan immigrants whose skyrocketing crime wave has been transforming the Netherlands.
Everyone now knows -- even German Chancellor Angela Merkel -- that she committed a political mistake in opening the doors of her country to more than a million migrants from the the Middle East, Africa and Asia. It was, politically, a triple mistake:
  • Merkel may have thought that humanitarian motives (the war in Syria and Iraq, the refugee problem) could help Germany openly pursue a migration policy that was initially launched and conducted in the shadows.
  • Merkel mainly helped to accelerate the defense mechanisms against the transformation of German society and culture into a "multicultural" space -- the "multi" being a segregated, Islamic way of life. The anti-immigration party Alternative for Germany (AfD) is now a big player on the German political scene.
  • Merkel raised anxiety all over Europe about the migrant problem. She might even have encouraged the United Kingdom to Brexit and pushed central European countries such as Hungary to the point of seceding from the European Union.
For many years, Germany was the country in Europe most open to immigration. According to Eurostat, the official data body of the European Union, between 2005 to 2014, Germany welcomed more than 6 million people. [1]

Not all six million people came from Middle East. The vast majority of them, however, were not from Europe. Clandestine immigration is not, of course, included in these figures.

Other countries also participated in a migrant race. In the same time frame, 2005-2014, three million people immigrated to France, or around 300,000 people a year. In Spain, the process was more chaotic: more than 700,000 migrants in 2005; 840,000 in 2006; almost a million in 2007 and then a slow decrease to 300,000 a year up to 2014.

The "refugee crisis," in fact, helped to make apparent what was latent: that behind humanitarian reasons, a huge official immigration policy in Europe was proceeding apace. For economic reasons, Europe had openly decided years ago to encourage a new population to enter, supposedly to compensate for the dramatic projected shrinking of Europe's native population.

Thousands of migrants cross illegally into Slovenia on foot, in this screenshot from YouTube video filmed in October 2015.

According to population projections made by Eurostat in 2013, without migrants, Europe's population would decline from 507.3 million in 2015 to 399.2 million by 2080. In roughly 65 years, a hundred million people (20%) would disappear. Country by country, the figures seemed even were more terrifying. By 2080, in Germany, 80 million people today would become 50 million. In Spain, 46.4 million people would become 30 million. In Italy, 60 million would decline to 39 million.

Some countries would be more stable: by 2080, France, with 66 million in 2015 would grow to 68.7 million, and England, with 67 million in 2015, would shrink only to approximately 65 million.

Is migration in itself a "bad" thing? Of course not. Migration from low-income countries to higher-income countries is almost a law of nature. As long as the number of births and deaths remains larger than the number of migrants, the result is considered beneficial. But when migration becomes the major contributor to population growth, the situation changes and what should be a simple evolution becomes a revolution.
It is a triple revolution:
  1. Because the number of migrants is huge. The 2015 United Nations World Population Prospects report states: "Between 2015 and 2050, total births in the group of high-income countries are projected to exceed deaths by 20 million, while the net gain in migrants is projected to be 91 million. Thus, in the medium variant, net migration is projected to account for 82 per cent of population growth in the high-income countries."
  2. Because of the culture of the migrants. Most of them belong to a Muslim and Arabic (or Turkish) culture, which was in an old and historical conflict with the (still?) dominant Christian culture of Europe. And mainly, because this Muslim migration process happens at a historic moment of a radicalization of the world's Muslim population.
  3. Because each European state is in position of weakness. In the process of building the European Union, national states stopped considering themselves as the indispensable integrator tool of different regional cultures inside a national frame. On the contrary, to prevent the return of large-scale chauvinistic wars such as World War I and World War II, all European nation-states engaged in the EU process and decided to program their own disappearance by transferring more and more power to a bureaucratic, unelected and untransparent executive Commission in Brussels. Not surprisingly, alongside Islamist troubles in all European countries, weak European states have now to cope with the strong resurgence of secessionist and regionalist movements, such as Corsica in France, Catalonia in Spain, and Scotland and Wales in United Kingdom.
Why did France, Germany and many other countries of the European Union opt for massive immigration, without saying it and without letting voters debate it? Perhaps because they thought a new population of taxpayers could help save their healthcare and retirement systems. To avoid the bankruptcy of social security and the social troubles of "dissatisfied retirees," the EU took the risk of transforming more or less homogenous nation-states into multicultural societies.

Politicians and economists seem blind to multicultural conflicts. They seem not even to suspect the importance of identity questions and religious topics. These questions belong to nations and since WW II, "the nation" is considered "bad." In addition, politicians and economists appear to think any cultural and religious problem is a secondary question. Despite the growing threat of Islamist terrorism (internal and imported from the Middle East), for example, they seem to persist in thinking that any violent domestic conflict can be dissolved in a "full-employment" society. Most of them seem to believe in U.S. President Barack Obama's imaginary jobs-for-jihadists solution to terrorism.

To avoid cultural conflicts (Muslim migrants vs non-Muslim natives) Germany could, of course, have imported people from the countries of Europe where there were no jobs: France, Spain, Italy. But this "white" workforce is considered "expensive" by big companies (construction, care-givers and all services...) who need cheap imported workers no matter the area (Middle East, Turkey, Northern Africa) they are coming from. Internal migration inside the EU would not have solved either the main problem of a projected shrinking European population as a whole. Added to that, in a world where competition is transferred partially from nations to global regions, the might of European countries might be thought to lie in their population numbers.

Can Europe borrow a Muslim population from Turkey, Northern Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, and become a European world power, based on a population that is multicultural and multi-religious?

In theory, one can do that. But to succeed and avoid being crossed, day after day, by racial and religious tensions, two essential questions about integration must be put on the table: 1) What do we ask of newcomers? And 2) What do we do to those who do not accept our conditions?

In other words, integration is an asymmetrical process where the newcomer is expected to produce the effort to adapt.

Of course, if the flow of migrants is big, the host society will change, but that is evolution; the sense of cultural and historical continuity will not be demanded into a decline.

In Europe, these two questions of integration were never asked of anyone. According to Michèle Tribalat, sociologist and demographer:
"EU countries agreed at the Council of 19 November 2004, on eleven common basic principles to which to commit. When it is question of integration they disclaim any asymmetry between the host society and newcomers. No privileges are granted to the Europeans or to their heritage. All cultures have the same citizenship. There is no recognition of a substantial European culture that it might be useful to preserve. The social bond is designed as a horizontal one, between the people in the game. Its vertical dimension in reference to history and to the past seems to be superfluous. They speak about values, but these values appear to be negotiable".
In France, in Germany, and in Sweden, it became rapidly clear that growing flow of a radicalized Muslim population began to change the rules of the integration game. The migrants did not have to "adapt" and are free to reproduce their religious and cultural habits. By contrast, the local "natives" were ordered not to resist "environmental" changes produced by immigration. When they tried to resist anyway, a political and media machine began to criminalize their "racist" behavior and supposed intolerance.

In the new migrant order, the host population is expected to make room for the newcomer and bear the burden of not what is "integration", but the acceptance of a coerced coexistence.

France's Archbishop Pontier declared to Le Monde in October 2016:
"We need people that we welcome to love France. If we always offer a negative view, they cannot love the country. However, if we see them as people who bring us something new, we get to grow together".
When "good feelings" did not work, however, the authorities have often criminalized and prosecuted anti-immigration critics. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders is currently on trial for trying to defend his country from Moroccan immigrants whose skyrocketing crime wave has been transforming the Netherlands.

He may go to jail for as long as a year and could be fined a maximum of ‎€7,400 ($7,000 USD).

In France, the Paris prosecutor opened a preliminary investigation for an "apologia of terrorism" against the anti-immigration writer Eric Zemmour. In an interview with the magazine Causeur, published October 6, Zemmour said that "Muslims must choose" between France and Islam. He added that he had "respect for jihadists willing to die for what they believe." The Paris prosecutor chose to take this sentence out of context to prosecute him.

Will this double movement -- the injunction to love Islam plus criminalizing anti-Islam critics -- be enough to kill off any opposition to the EU's migration policy, and serve to Islamize the continent?

We shall find out.
Yves Mamou, based in France, worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde.
[1] Statistical breakdown:
  • 707.352 migrants in 2005
  • 661.855 in 2006
  • 680.766 in 2007
  • 682.146 in 2008
  • 346.216 in 2009
  • 404.055 in 2010
  • 489.422 in 2011
  • 592.175 in 2012
  • 692.713 in 2013
  • 884.893 in 2014

Yves Mamou


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Qatar's Shopping Spree to Buy and Displace the West? - Giulio Meotti

by Giulio Meotti

Qatar is the puppeteer behind UNESCO's anti-Semitic resolution on Jerusalem, and a world center of Islamic extremism.

  • Qatar sits on the executive board of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the UN agency that has just erased 3000 years of Jewish history in Jerusalem, and has set its sights on the main chair at UNESCO: as the successor of UNESCO's secretary general, Irina Bokova.
  • Human rights organizations have already promoted a campaign to prevent Qatar's Kawari from taking the UNESCO seat. Citing a vast amount of anti-Semitic material present at the Doha Book Fair, Kawari's flagship, the Simon Wiesenthal Center launched a campaign against his candidacy.
  • Qatar is the puppeteer behind UNESCO's anti-Semitic resolution on Jerusalem, and a world center of Islamic extremism. Qatar does not make a secret of trying to submit Western culture to the Muslim crescent.
The Soviet Union, during the Cold War, invested in propaganda operations in the West to subvert capitalism and democracy. Communism found precious allies in the so-called "useful idiots" who facilitated Soviet work in academia, newspapers and publishing houses. Political Islam has been using the same convenient outlets and mechanisms to spread Islamic sharia law in the West.

The old role of Soviet propaganda has now been taken up by Islamic regimes. Qatar, for instance, is not only interested in buying large segments of Europe's economy (Hochtief, Volkswagen, Porsche, Canary Wharf and Deutsche Bank), but also in playing a key role in Europe's culture.

Qatar sits on the executive board of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the UN agency that has just erased 3000 years of Jewish history in Jerusalem, and has set its sights on the main chair at UNESCO: as the successor of UNESCO's secretary general, Irina Bokova.

The favorite for this race is, in fact, the former minister of culture of Qatar from 2008 to 2016, Hamad bin Abdulaziz al Kawari, who currently serves as "cultural adviser to the Emir," Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. In 2017, the UNESCO leadership is supposed to go to a representative of the Arab world, according to the rule of geographic rotation; Kawari will have to defeat the candidacy of a Lebanese and an Egyptian.

Kawari recently landed in Rome, apparently to start his promotional tour, and he met with its mayor, Virginia Raggi, who received the Islamic emirate's delegation. Kawari received an honorary degree from Tor Vergata University, Rome's second most important university. The photo of the ceremony speaks volumes about political Islam's level of penetration in Europe's academic culture. Abdullah Bin Hamad Al Attiyah, Qatar's former deputy prime minister, even spoke at Tor Vergata.

Qatar's Hamad bin Abdulaziz al Kawari (center), who serves as "cultural adviser to the Emir," is pictured receiving an honorary degree from Rome's Tor Vergata University last month. (Image source: Askanews video screenshot)

Kawari also had a meeting with Italy's minister of culture, Dario Franceschini and minister of education, Stefania Giannini.

Last June, Kawari was also in the Vatican to meet with Pope Francis and sign an agreement between the Vatican Apostolic Library and the Qatar Foundation for Education. Kawari, fluent in Arabic, English and French, is an affable man of the world, at home in Paris, where he graduated from Sorbonne University; his climb to the leadership of UNESCO has the support of the rulers of the Gulf and Saudi Arabia.

Human rights organizations have already promoted a campaign to prevent Kawari from taking the UNESCO seat. Citing a vast amount of anti-Semitic material present at the Doha Book Fair, Kawari's flagship, the Simon Wiesenthal Center launched a campaign against his candidacy. In a letter to Kawari, Shimon Samuels, Director for International Relations of the Wiesenthal Center, said the material on display every year in Doha "violates the values ​​promoted by Unesco".

Samuels listed at least 35 anti-Semitic titles, including nine editions of the anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, four editions of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, and four editions of Henry Ford's The International Jew. "From this point of view, Doha is far from Paris," said Samuels, referring to the general headquarters of UNESCO.

Qatar is the puppeteer behind UNESCO's anti-Semitic resolution on Jerusalem, and a world center of Islamic extremism. Doha just held a meeting between the Palestinian Authority's leader, Mahmoud Abbas, and the heads of Hamas, a terrorist organization devoted to the destruction of the State of Israel. Qatar does not make a secret of trying to submit Western culture to the Muslim crescent. The only question is, which country's culture will UNESCO erase next?

The Qatari royal family is now much involved in "the arts." According to the BBC, "To take a recent example, the Qatari royal family sponsored the Tate's Damien Hirst retrospective. It's now moved to Doha, where Tate director Nicholas Serota attended the official launch." Major works by Warhol, Bacon, Rothko, Koons and Hirst are all thought to have made their way to Qatar.

Qatar is buying academic chairs in Europe's universities, such as the pact between Doha and Rome's Tor Vergata. What is the university presumably expected to do for Qatar in exchange for that? Qatar academic purchases are also the subject of Le Monde's investigation entitled, "Tariq Ramadan: le sphinx," which details how Tariq Ramadan, the well-known European Muslim intellectual, was been able to obtain a chair at the University of Oxford. Mediapart, the French leftist magazine, ran a long exposé about Tariq Ramadan as "Qatar's showcase."

The Qatari monarchy, in 2015 alone, donated £11 million to renew Oxford's St Antony's College, where Tariq Ramadan works. Sheikha Moza, the wife of Emir Al Thani, inaugurated the magnificent building designed by the late architect, Zaha Hadid.

Qatar also financed the creation of an Islamic section at the Bloomsbury publishing house and the "Doha Debates" program that aired on the BBC. It would be interesting to know how Qatar's sharia can find agreement with the sybaritic Bloomsbury's British culture.

The attorney-general of Qatar also signed an agreement with the president of Sorbonne University, Philippe Boutry, in Paris, for the enrollment of hundreds of migrants from the Middle East. The Sorbonne accepted 600,000 euros a year, for three years.

Many British universities also receive large donations from Qatar. University College London, for example, has an archeology campus in Qatar. The Qatar Development Fund recently donated $4.3 million to the Margaret Thatcher Scholarship Trust at Oxford University.

Qatar is also having a shopping spree in American universities, and is funding their university departments in the Arabian desert. Universities such as Cornell, Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown, Texas A&M and Virginia Commonwealth have all signed agreements with Emir Al Thani. Each will receive $320 million dollars a year.

Students of American Universities based in Doha are also invited to attend the sermons of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual mentor of the Muslim Brotherhood, who is known for his hate-ridden religious edicts. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has called it "outrageous" for Cornell University to decide to open a campus in Doha while the kingdom funds Hamas's war against Israel.

The Financial Times once called Qatar "the world's most aggressive deal hunter." Emir Al Thani is now promoting a takeover of Western culture. But very few in Europe seem to care about that. Is it because "it is difficult to avoid its money and influence", especially for an economically depressed Europe? With their telling silence, are they simply aligning with Qatar's sharia rulers, and hoping they will chosen to be bought out next?

Giulio Meotti,Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Trump team warns Obama against major moves against Israel at UN - Shlomo Cesana and Israel Hayom Staff

by Shlomo Cesana and Israel Hayom Staff

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-Charles Bensoussan

"Obama shouldn't go seeking new adventures or pushing policies that clearly don't match Trump's positions," the president-elect's national security adviser tells Politico • Senior Trump adviser: With Trump there won't be any coercion against Israel.

President-elect Donald Trump with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York, Sept. 25
Photo credit: Kobi Gideon/GPO

Shlomo Cesana and Israel Hayom Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.