Saturday, November 20, 2021

Kyle Rittenhouse is Free - and the Left is Enraged - Robert Spencer


​ by Robert Spencer

There isn’t supposed to be justice in America today for those who resist leftists.


Against all odds, the verdict came down just the way it would have before there came to be a two-tier justice system in America, with Leftists (Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden) enjoying the “privilege” that they claim white people enjoy, and evading all legal consequences no matter how egregiously they flout the law. Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges, as was only fitting and proper: it was abundantly clear from video evidence that he acted in self-defense in the killings of Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum, and the wounding of Gaige Grosskreutz. It was so clear that he was defending himself, in fact, that he should never have been tried in the first place, and only was put on trial in order to appease Leftists outraged that he had dared to resist the violent rioters they have appallingly likened to the heroes who stormed the Normandy beaches.

Nonetheless, justice was done, and that means that the Left is even more enraged now than it was already. Joe Biden, who has a half-century of public lying under his belt, showed yet again that he lied when he said that he would work for national unity. His handlers issued a statement that depicted the ostensible president stoking the flames of outrage: “While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken.”

Angry and concerned about what, Joe? That one American had shown that he wouldn’t take it lying down when Antifa and Black Lives Matter showed up to burn down a city?

Other Leftist leaders were much more explicit than Biden’s handlers about what exactly made them so angry. Rep. Cori Bush (D-Race Baiter) tweeted: “The judge. The jury. The defendant. It’s white supremacy in action. This system isn’t built to hold white supremacists accountable. It’s why Black and brown folks are brutalized and put in cages while white supremacist murderers walk free. I’m hurt. I’m angry. I’m heartbroken.” At least one tweeter tried to inject a bit of sanity into the proceedings, responding: “Every single person involved in this shooting is/was White. Even the attorneys and judge are White. Where is racism involved? It’s an honest question.”

No answer was forthcoming, of course. How could there be, when Bush’s statement was so far from reality that even Salvador Dali would stand back in awe? Bush’s central assumption, of course, was that white people can essentially do whatever they want in America, without fearing any legal consequences. This is so ridiculous as to defy rational consideration, but it was also ominous: in Cori Bush’s ideal America, violent rioters can maraud at will with no fear of resistance, because anyone who dares to stand up to them will be smeared as a “white supremacist” and found guilty because of that designation, regardless of the facts of the case.

Bush’s hysterical response to the verdict was similar to that of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-Nursing Homes), who tweeted: “Today’s verdict is a stain on the soul of America, & sends a dangerous message about who & what values our justice system was designed to protect[.] We must stand unified in rejecting supremacist vigilantism & with one voice say: this is not who we are.”

A stain on the soul of America? Really? Like 15,000 nursing home Covid deaths and multiple claims of sexual harassment? Cuomo’s tweet was the height of irony, because in reality it is not the Rittenhouse verdict, but the fact that Andrew Cuomo is a free man today, that is a “stain on the soul of America, & sends a dangerous message about who & what values our justice system was designed to protect.” The fact that Cuomo, like Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden and so very many other Leftists, doesn’t have to worry in the slightest degree about facing prosecution, no matter what they have quite obviously done, is the real stain on the soul of America.

But even worse may be the fallout from the Rittenhouse verdict. Watch for numerous new initiatives from Leftists in power to curb “white supremacy” in our justice system, which means to make it more difficult for people to defend themselves from violent Leftists. Kyle Rittenhouse had the effrontery to fight back and win; this must never be allowed to happen again. As always when faced with a loss, Leftists will overplay their hand. In the coming months, lovers of freedom will need to stand stronger than ever.


Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 23 books including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)The Truth About Muhammad and The History of Jihad. His latest book is The Critical Qur’anFollow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Bennett builds a terror state - Caroline B. Glick


​ by Caroline B. Glick

PM Naftali Bennett and his ministers are dismantling everything the Netanyahu governments achieved in preventing the PA from securing the financial wherewithal to wage a terror war.

Standing at the speaker's rostrum at the Knesset last week, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett declared, "There are no negotiations taking place towards the establishment of a terror state in the heart of Israel."

Bennett was compelled to make his declaration because the political opposition insists that the opposite is the case. Bennett's former political partner, MK Bezalel Smotrich gathered the requisite 40 signatures to compel Bennett to appear before the Knesset last week and answer questions. Smotrich and his fellow members of the opposition believe that Bennett's far-left dominated government is moving swiftly to establish a Palestinian terror state in the heart of Israel.

Events this week indicated that despite Bennett's denials, the opposition is right.

In Oslo, Norway on Wednesday, the so-called Ad Hoc Liaison Committee convened for its semi-annual conference. The AHLC is a consortium of donor governments that support the Palestinian Authority. It was founded in 1993, immediately after the Israeli-PLO peace process was formally inaugurated on the White House Lawn. The peace process was dubbed the Oslo process because the secret talks that led to the official peace process were initiated in Oslo.

The AHLC serves a double purpose. Donor governments raise funds to finance and maintain governing mechanisms and institutions in the PLO-controlled Palestinian Authority. Those institutions and mechanisms are supposed to serve as the foundation of a future Palestinian state. The donor countries also fund projects geared towards developing the Palestinian economy.

Since 1993, through the AHLC and other international donor mechanisms, the Palestinians have received more foreign aid per capita than any nation has received in history. Despite this, the PA never formed a functioning economy. Yasser Arafat, his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, and their cronies opted instead to use the funds to form a terror sponsoring kleptocracy.

As more and more donor nations realized they were being had, AHLC funding of the PA plummeted by some 80% over the past decade. Whereas, in 2011, donor nations gave the PA $1.3 billion, in 2020, the sum had dropped to $500 million. This year, the PA is only expected to raise $184 million.

Most European aid to the PA has been frozen. Investigations of the use of those funds showed that forty percent of donor funds to the PA did not reach their recipients. They also showed direct links between EU funds and Palestinian terrorism.

Aside from Qatar, which funds Hamas in Gaza, Arab states have largely stopped bankrolling the PA. In retaliation for Palestinian condemnation of the Abraham Accords, last year Arab states ended all assistance to the PA. Although it was reinstated this year, the amounts being transferred are a fraction of what they gave in the past. In 2019, Arab donor governments gave the PA $265 million. This year, funding of the PA stood at $32 million.

The Trump administration ended US funding for the PA in 2018 following Congress's passage of the Taylor Force Act. Named for Taylor Force, a US Army veteran of the Iraq War who was killed by a Palestinian terrorist during a university trip to Israel in 2015, the Taylor Force Act bars the US from funding the PA so long as it pays salaries to convicted terrorists jailed in Israeli prisons and to families of dead Palestinian terrorists.

The Europeans and Americans didn't just wake up one morning and decide to stop funding the terror sponsoring, corrupt PA. Their decisions were the product of a decade of painstaking work by the Netanyahu governments to persuade them that money for the PA was money ill-spent.

For the past generation, the Israeli Left has insisted that it is possible to support the PLO and oppose Palestinian terrorism at the same time. This contention was the main rationale for the Oslo process. But as the massive increase in Palestinian terrorism since the establishment of the PA in 1994 proved incontrovertibly, the opposite is the case.

If you want to prevent Palestinian terrorism, you mustn't give the PLO money, or arms or legitimacy. The PLO is the architect of Palestinian terrorism specifically and of modern terrorism more generally. And it is one leopard that has never and will never change its spots.

By the same token, if you want to prevent the establishment of a terror state in the heart of Israel, you cannot fund the PLO-controlled PA. All the funds that aren't stolen by PA leaders are spent developing the military, political and economic foundations of a Palestinian terror state in the heart of Israel.

During Benjamin Netanyahu's long tenure as premier, supported by Israeli NGOs, the government devoted great efforts to persuading the US Congress, and the Obama and Trump administrations, that the US should end its financial support of the PA. They did the same thing with European governments and parliaments. Their relentless work made it impossible for the Americans and the Europeans to shut their eyes to the PA's massive embezzlement of funds and diversion of billions of dollars to finance and incentivize terrorism.

But today, Bennett is using his declaration that no negotiations are being carried on to hide the fact that the actions he and his ministers are taking have the same effect as negotiations. They are dismantling everything the Netanyahu governments achieved. Netanyahu's moves to prevent the PA from having the financial wherewithal to wage a terror campaign are being undone. His efforts to deny the Palestinians the geographical and political means to establish a terror state in the heart of Israel are also being reversed.

Israel's delegation to the AHLC in Oslo is headed by Regional Cooperation Minister Esawi Frej. Frej arrived in Oslo several days before the conference opened to join PA Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh in lobbying the Europeans, Arabs and Americans to give more money to the PA. Frej and Shtayyeh are asking donors to make multi-year commitments that will provide the PA with a billion dollars a year.

Frej isn't the only Israeli cabinet minister fundraising for the PA. Defense Minister Benny Gantz is also in on the action. Haaretz reported this week that Gantz dispatched his senior advisor Zohar Palti to Washington to ask the Biden administration to pressure European and Arab governments to increase their contributions to the PA and to fund major projects geared towards expanding the Palestinian economy.

These efforts by Bennett's ministers aren't simply financing the terror-sponsoring PA. They are demolishing Israel's future ability to combat international funding of Palestinian terrorists.

Led by anti-Israel Congressman Andy Levin, a group of Congress members are currently pushing a bill that calls for the US to disregard the Taylor Force Act and reopen the PLO representative office in Washington and reinstate funding for the PA. Both moves are prohibited under the law because the PA continues to pay salaries to terrorists and pensions to the families of dead terrorists. How can Israel, which is lobbying governments worldwide to fund the terror-financing PA, object to their bill?

Fundraising for the PA isn't the only way the Bennett government is facilitating Palestinian terror. The government's approval of thousands of Palestinian construction permits in Area C, along with its refusal to destroy thousands of illegal Palestinian structures in Area C is a strategic gift to Palestinian terrorists. Area C is where all of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are located.

The purpose of massive Palestinian construction in the area isn't to alleviate overcrowding in PA-controlled Areas A and B. Those areas are not overcrowded. The purpose of Palestinian construction in Area C is to transform all Israeli communities from relatively safe, flourishing villages, towns and cities into isolated enclaves vulnerable to terror assaults like never before. Palestinian domination of Area C will also turn Israeli cities like Jerusalem and Kfar Saba into border towns, much like the bombarded towns and villages bordering Gaza.

Frej and Gantz's fundraising partner Shtayyeh is generally presented to westerners as a moderate technocrat because of his university-educated English. But Shtayyeh's positions are just as fanatically antisemitic and bellicose as any garden variety jihadist. In a speech to delegates at the PA's ruling Fatah faction's annual conference in July, Shtayyeh argued that the Jews have no ties to the land of Israel or the biblical nation of Israel. Contemporary Jews, he said, are descendants of the sixth-century Russian Khazars.

At the climate change conference in Glasgow earlier this month, Shtayyeh adapted the age-old "Jews poisoning the wells" blood libel to his contemporary context. Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria, he said, were polluting the natural resources of "Palestine."

In what he though was an off-record briefing for Israeli Arab journalists in late September, Shtayyeh said that if Israel didn't bow to all of the PLO's territorial and political demands, then the PA would join forces with Israel's Arab minority, form a unified leadership and wage a war to destroy the Jewish state.

This brings us to Shtayyeh's boss, PA chairman and PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas. In September Abbas gave Israel an ultimatum at the UN General Assembly. He said that Israel has a year to surrender Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. If it fails to do so, the PLO will renounce its recognition of Israel's right to exist. In other words, he told Israel that if it fails to surrender, the PA will renew its terror war against the Jewish state.

The Bennett government's reversal of Netanyahu's policies was supposed to usher in a new era of friendship between Israel and the Democrats and post-nationalist western Europeans. But the opposite has happened. While Biden is happy to ignore the Taylor Force Act and finance the PA, his administration grows more hostile to Israel by the day.

Last week the US abstained in a UN General Assembly vote on a resolution endorsing the so-called "right of return," of Palestinian "refugees." As the Biden administration understands well, the Palestinian demand for a "right of return" or unfettered immigration of millions of foreign- born Arabs to Israel and the PA, is a demand for Israel's destruction. If the Jewish state is flooded with millions of Arab immigrants, it will be undone.

So, while Israel's government is running around the world raising money for the establishment of a Palestinian terror state, Washington no longer can say whether it supports Israel's existence.

When seen in the context of his government's actual policies, it is clear that Bennett's statement at the Knesset was a head fake. You don't need to negotiate the establishment of a terror state in the heart of Israel. You can simply raise the money to establish one, give its leaders control of the territory they will need to attack Israel, and convince the international community that Israel wants them to fund Palestinian terrorism. This is what Bennett is doing.

It took the Netanyahu governments ten years to repair the damage the catastrophic Oslo process caused Israel. It will take many more years to repair the damage the Bennett government is causing the country today.


Caroline B. Glick


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

An Israeli tragedy - Dr. Martin Sherman


​ by Dr. Martin Sherman

It will take a long time, maybe decades, to repair the damage caused by the dishonest machinations used to ensconce the current coalition, not only on Israel's body-politic, but on the Zionist endeavor-if such repair is at all feasible. Ever!


Bennett Government meeting
Bennett Government meeting
Hezki Baruch

Whoever commits a fraud is guilty not only of the injury to him who he deceives, but of the diminution of that confidence which constitutes...the existence of society—Samuel Johnson, renowned English poet, playwright, essayist, (1709-1784).

Bennett knows that if he goes to a military conflict, the coalition will fall apart because Meretz and Ra'am won't agree to it. The presence of Meretz and Ra’am limits the sharpness of any military decision...The moment the government makes a decision about something military, there will be a danger to the coalition—Meretz MK Ghaida Rinawie-Zoabi, cited in The Jerusalem Post, August 8, 2021.

The political process taking place in Israel is eerily similar to what took place in Lebanon following the foundation of Hezbollah—Mordechai Kedar, The Lebanonization of Israel, March 31, 2021.

Earlier this year, prominent Mid-East scholar, Dr. Mordechai Kedar penned two versions (here and here) of an incisive and insightful, but deeply disturbing article.

Cogent case

In it, he warned that the petty, vindictive personal and partisan agendas of Israeli politicians have brought the Jewish state to the brink of disaster. He writes:

"The political struggle in Israel has reached a deadlock because the actors are focused not on issues and ideology but on personal, sectorial, factional, and party-based considerations. National interests have been relegated to the margins of political discourse..."

Kedar, an acknowledged expert in the study of Islam, with years of experience in both academia and military intelligence, made a cogent case for his caveat that by letting the Muslim Brotherhood affiliate, the Islamist Ra'am faction, into its mainstream body-politic, Israel was setting out along the same perilous path that Lebanon took when it allowed the Iranian-affiliated Hezbollah into its mainstream politics.

He ascribes the roots of the Lebanese tragedy to "…the choice by politicians…to subordinate the national interest to personal and sectorial interests. They sacrificed the country on the altar of their own careers by delegitimizing opponents… "

Sadly, I find myself compelled to concur in large measure with Kedar's ominous prognosis. For, similar patterns of behavior are emerging in Israel.

Indeed, as time passes, the abysmal truth in coming into ever sharper focus.

The entity that governs Israel today is nothing more than a toxic brew of unbridled personal ambition and ideological nihilism; puerile pique and devious duplicity. Nothing more. It is by its very nature, wracked by impossible internal contradictions—incapable of generating any common vision, towards which it can guide the nation.

Shattering all credence in campaign promises

The newly formed, hodgepodge, Bibi-phobic governing coalition, ostensibly led by Naftali Bennett, has been in power for a little more than five months. Yet, it will take a long time—probably decades—to repair the appalling damage it has already wrought on the fabric of the body-politic of the country, and on the essence of the Zionist endeavor itself—if such repair is even feasible. Ever!

Regrettably, it would be no exaggeration to state that the current coalition has shattered any credence that the Israeli public can place in campaign promises of candidates during elections.

Significantly, this goes way beyond any healthy skepticism with which voters should treat the usual gamut of pre-election pledges, routinely peddled by candidates, to implement various aspects of their respective party platforms, and on which —due to political constraints—they eventually proved unable to fulfill.

For in the case of Naftali Bennett's accession to the post of prime minister, the deceit and the duplicity far exceed the regular shenanigans that have come to characterize the conduct of politics in recent decades. After all, it was not that Bennett, once ensconced in a post-election government, ultimately failed to advance his platform as he pledged to do during the 2021-election campaign.

Rather, it was that he reneged on explicit commitments that he repeatedly and resolutely undertook, joining up with his ideological adversaries, whom he vowed to shun, in order to establish—indeed, spearhead—a government he vowed to foil.

Thus, it was not that he failed to fulfill promises ex-post (i.e. once in government). Rather, it was that he discarded promises ex-ante – i.e. in order to facilitate a government, in which the overwhelming majority of the component factions had very different (some, even antithetical) ideo-political positions to those, on which he ran during the elections.

Fake, fabricated & fraudulent

Indeed, so fundamental was this deception that it involved Bennet jettisoning—or at least, suspending—virtually his entire ideological frame of reference, and whose advancement was the very thing for which he elicited voter-support in the election, so that he could participate in precisely the government he vowed not to.

Thus, in a pre-election press release (March 6, 2021), Bennett’s Yamina faction pledged: Yamina will not be complicit in forming a government dependent on Ra’am- not with its support; not with its abstention, and not in any way.”

Elsewhere, Bennett himself vowed: “ I won’t let Lapid become prime minister, with or without a rotation, because I’m a man of the right and for me values are important.” Just to eliminate any possible doubt, he reiterated: “Never, and under no circumstances, will I ever lend a hand to the establishment of a government led by Yair Lapid, not in a rotation or any other way”.

Likewise, mere days before the March 23 elections, during a prime-time television interview, Bennett, expressing his alleged sensitivity for the democratic process, proclaimed, unequivocally: “I won’t be a prime minister with 10 mandates. That’s not democratic”.

Of course, Bennett showed little compunction or conscience in extorting the post of prime minister with barely half that number—unless of course he is so arithmetically challenged that he genuinely believes that 6 is significantly more than 10…

Cratering support

Unsurprisingly then, a poll conducted shortly after the elections, found that over half of Yamina voters would not have voted for the party if they knew that Bennett would act in the way he acted—which would have left it below the minimum threshold for Knesset admission! Moreover, the poll found that a majority of Yamina voters felt that the deal Bennett spun, together with Lapid, constitutes a violation of the trust given him at the ballot box.

Nor has Bennett’s performance since then—or that of his coalition—instilled greater public confidence in either.

According to a November 2021 poll, the combined right-wing elements in the present government (Bennett's Yamina and Gideon Sa'ar's New Hope) comprise a mere 6 seats—less than half the number they won in the March elections—and barely 5% of the total number of seats in the Knesset. Even if we add the 4 seats, which the poll assigns Avigdor Liberman's Yisrael Beytenu, the overall number of seats won by coalition factions, usually considered to be "right-of-center", amounts to 10—roughly half the Knesset seats they have at present. Significantly, very similar findings emerged from an earlier poll conducted in October, in which a Netanyahu-led Likud mustered mandates in the mid-30s, while the Bennett-Sa'ar-Liberman trio's tally was once again a paltry total of 10.

This shows a dramatic cratering of public support for the allegedly "right-of-center" parties, who preferred to shun their own long-standing pledges and throw their lot in with parties, whose political credos are antithetical to those they profess to hold—indeed, largely negate them.

“There can be no allegiance to Israel...”

Arguably, one of the most disconcerting elements of the Bennett-led coalition is that, it in effect, left the fate of a purportedly Zionist coalition totally dependent on the whims of a blatantly anti-Zionist party, openly committed to a doctrine of stripping Israel of its status as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

Indeed, the 80-page Ra’am charter quickly dispels any doubt that may linger on this matter and how utterly discordant it is with the professed belief system of Yamina, and of the constituency it purports to represent. It asserts: “The State of Israel was born of the racist, occupying Zionist project; iniquitous Western and British imperialism; and the debasement and feebleness of the Arab and Islamic [nations]. We do not absolve ourselves, the Palestinian people, of our responsibility and our failure to confront this project.”

In similar vein, it proclaims: “There can be no allegiance to [Israel], nor any identification with its Zionist, racist, occupier thought, nor any acceptance of any of the various forms of ‘Israelification,’ which would shed us of our identity and particularity and rights.”

The Left-leaning Israel Democracy Institute gives the following synopsis of Ra’am’s political credo: "Ra'am supports the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, with an end of the occupation and dismantling of the settlements. It also seeks the release of Palestinian prisoners and the right of return of Palestinian refugees. The party advocates the recognition of Israeli Arabs as a national minority and seeks to ensure their rights in a constitution".

Mortgaging Zionism to anti-Zionists

This, then, is a snapshot of the political faction to which Bennett has mortgaged the fate of the current government, charged with safeguarding and developing the Jewish state and the Zionist endeavor—which Abbas and his anti-Zionist cronies are committed to impeding and eliminating!

Of course, in order to cobble together this bizarre—almost Kafkaesque—political potpourri, Bennett (and his co-conspirator, Yair Lapid) was compelled to confer far-reaching benefits on the anti-Zionist, Islamist co-participants to ensure their continued maintenance of a bizarre kaleidoscopic coalition.

Accordingly, Ra’am secured an agreement for the allocation of more than 53 billion shekels ($16 billion) for development and to curb the soaring violent crime in the Arab sector—including a half a billion shekel slush fund for “discretionary” spending over five years.

One can only imagine the uproar had it been a Jewish haredi party that managed to extort such an inordinate sum to advance the needs of its constituents and to further its political objectives, in exchange for support of/participation in a coalition.

But financial bonanzas were not the only benefits that Bennett’s newly found anti-Zionist BFFs were awarded. Indeed, the non-financial concessions to Ra’am are more directly detrimental to Zionist endeavor than the lavish funding of the anti-Zionists in the coalition.

For, these clearly contribute to cementing the pervasive illegal Bedouin presence in the expanses of the Negev in southern Israel, a stronghold for Islamist support. Thus, the agreement provides for Israel

(a) immediately recognizing three unauthorized Bedouin villages in the southern Negev desert;

(b) extending the freeze already placed by the outgoing government on the demolition of illegal housing in the Arab community by three years (Clause 18), and

(c) presenting within nine months a proposal to legalize all[!!] unlawful Bedouin villages (Clause 19).

The blight Bennett brought: Devastating & durable damage

The crucial point to grasp about the devastating damage wrought by Bennett and his fickle Bibiphobic cronies is that it will not be remedied by any later feats of governance.

For not only have they empowered political adversaries, who they assured their voters they would not, they gravely—hopefully, not irreparably—impaired at least two seminal pillars of Israeli democracy.

Firstly, they have sent an unambiguously clear signal that voters cannot give any credence to pre-election pledges, no matter how apparently passionate and resolute they appear, even when they involve the allegedly core ideology of a candidate. By perpetrating this, they have effectively emptied elections—and the entire democratic process—of any significance, have given the stamp of approval to unadulterated deceit and endorsed fraudulent duplicity.

Secondly, they have legitimized political parties, which repudiate the founding principle upon which Israel was founded as the nation-state of the Jewish people and normalized their political agenda of de-Judaizing Israel.

History has given the Jewish people the rare—arguably, unique—opportunity of reestablishing its national sovereignty after being stripped of it for two millennia. Bennett, and his crony cohorts, Sa'ar and Liberman, are on the cusp of squandering it.

After all the effort and sacrifice invested in the reemergence of a Jewish nation-state, it is difficult to conceive a greater tragedy.

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran's Mullahs to Obtain Major Concessions from Biden Admin and EU? - Majid Rafizadeh


​ by Majid Rafizadeh

The Biden administration and the EU would do well to remember that with every concession they give the Islamic Republic, they are not furthering peace in the region; they are instead empowering and emboldening a rapacious regime.

  • The Biden administration has already caved in to the mullahs' demands. It announced not only that it is willing to lift nuclear-related sanctions, but also that it is considering lifting non-nuclear related sanctions. The administration also proceeded to revoke the designation of the Houthis, an Iran-backed terror group, as an officially-designated terrorist organization.

  • "The Biden administration appears to be using loopholes when dealing with the Iranian regime.... If the Biden administration is involved in transferring funds to Iran, Congress and the American people must be informed. Biden administration officials continue to deflect and refuse to answer questions from members of Congress regarding this issue. I want answers. " — U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, March 25, 2021.

  • The Biden administration and the EU would do well to remember that with every concession they give the Islamic Republic, they are not furthering peace in the region; they are instead empowering and emboldening a rapacious regime.

The Biden administration has already caved in to the demands of Iran's mullahs. It announced not only that it is willing to lift nuclear-related sanctions, but also that it is considering lifting non-nuclear related sanctions. U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil (pictured) commented: "The Biden administration appears to be using loopholes when dealing with the Iranian regime.... If the Biden administration is involved in transferring funds to Iran, Congress and the American people must be informed. Biden administration officials continue to deflect and refuse to answer questions from members of Congress regarding this issue." (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

The ruling mullahs of Iran are maneuvering towards obtaining major concessions from the Biden administrations and the EU3 (France, Germany and the United Kingdom) during the upcoming nuclear talks in Vienna on November 29.

The Iranian regime wants the Biden administration to remove all sanctions that were imposed on Tehran during the Trump administration -- many of which are not even linked to Iran's nuclear program. Instead, they are related to the Iranian regime's terrorist activities and human rights violations.

An important example is the serious designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) -- a paramilitary force established in 1979 to promote the revolution -- as a terrorist organization. The IRGC is responsible for maintaining the Supreme Leader's power and the regime's revolutionary ideals, which include anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. Inside Iran, the IRGC cracks down on and silences opposition to regime's rule; engages in the repression of dissidents and suppression of the freedoms of speech, press and assembly, and it imprisons, tortures and executes opponents through its revolutionary courts. The IRGC's footprints can also be seen in many international conflicts, including in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon, especially through its elite branch, the Quds Force.

The Biden administration has already caved in to the mullahs' demands. It announced not only that it is willing to lift nuclear-related sanctions, but also that it is considering lifting non-nuclear related sanctions. The administration also proceeded to revoke the designation of the Houthis, an Iran-backed terror group, as an officially-designated terrorist organization.

Republican foreign policy leaders in Congress have requested from Secretary of State Antony Blinken answers to questions about the secret talks held with South Korea that resulted in South Korea giving the Iranian regime $1 billion in ransom money. The letter was led by Congressman Bryan Steil (R-WI), Congressman Greg Steube (R-FL) and Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Banks (R-IN). Steil pointed out:

"The Biden administration appears to be using loopholes when dealing with the Iranian regime. I am again asking direct, yes or no questions on the United States' involvement in facilitating a South Korean ransom payment to Iran. If the Biden administration is involved in transferring funds to Iran, Congress and the American people must be informed. Biden administration officials continue to deflect and refuse to answer questions from members of Congress regarding this issue. I want answers. Congress must be informed of the administration's actions."

Meanwhile, the Iranian regime is being empowered, and has ruled out discussion about its ballistic missile program, a core pillar of its nuclear program, in the upcoming talks in Vienna. It is ironic that the ruling mullahs want the talks lead to the lifting of non-nuclear sanctions in addition to the nuclear sanctions, but do not wish to discuss anything apart from their nuclear program, such as their terrorist activities.

Since the Biden administration assumed office, the Iranian regime has been preparing to obtain major concessions. The mullahs have made significant advances in their nuclear program ahead of the talks in order to gain leverage and the upper hand during negotiations with the US and the EU3.

When the Biden administration came to power, the Iranian regime began advancing its nuclear program at a noticeably faster pace. On January 9, the Iranian parliament passed a law requiring the government to expel nuclear inspectors from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In January 2021, the Iranian regime started increasing uranium enrichment to 20%. In April, the regime raised its uranium enrichment level to 60%, edging closer to weapons-grade levels.

"The young and God-believing Iranian scientists managed to achieve a 60% enriched uranium product," Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, speaker of Iran's parliament, bragged. "I congratulate the brave nation of Islamic Iran on this success. The Iranian nation's willpower is miraculous and can defuse any conspiracy."

The Biden administration, in addition, has made no effort to pressure the Iranian regime into answering the IAEA's questions about three undeclared clandestine nuclear sites found in Iran.

"Iran must decide to cooperate in a clearer manner with the agency to give the necessary clarifications," warned IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi.

"The fact that we found traces (of uranium) is very important. That means there is the possibility of nuclear activities and material that are not under international supervision and about which we know not the origin or the intent. That worries me."

The Biden administration and the EU would do well to remember that with every concession they give the Islamic Republic, they are not furthering peace in the region; they are instead empowering and emboldening a rapacious regime.


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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris make asses of themselves after Rittenhouse verdict - Monica Showalter


​ by Monica Showalter

The pair of them cast aspersions on the valid jury's verdict in the trail of Kyle Rittenhouse. Is somebody telling them to do that?

If Joe Biden were a normal president, he'd be praising and thanking the jury for serving in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. They consented to their citizens' duty to serve in their fundamental duty as citizens on that jury. They sacrificed weeks of their time to hear the court testimony, evaluate considerable evidence carefully, checked carefully to see how that evidence could apply to U.S. law, and then issued their fair, impartial, and unanimous verdict, which was for a full acquitttal. They did so under the high pressure of the public spotlight, which included leftist death threats. That was patriots who came together in their common democratic duty.

When Biden was first asked about the trial, he came close to doing that. According to The Hill:

“Well look, I stand by what the jury has concluded. The jury system works and we have to abide by it,” the president said when asked about the decision by reporters at the White House.

It was bland, but could be respected. Not too long after that, he came up with a very different kind of statement, from someone writing from the White House masthead.


While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken. I ran on a promise to bring Americans together, because I believe that what unites us is far greater than what divides us.  I know that we’re not going to heal our country’s wounds overnight, but I remain steadfast in my commitment to do everything in my power to ensure that every American is treated equally, with fairness and dignity, under the law.

I urge everyone to express their views peacefully, consistent with the rule of law.  Violence and destruction of property have no place in our democracy.  The White House and Federal authorities have been in contact with Governor Evers’s office to prepare for any outcome in this case, and I have spoken with the Governor this afternoon and offered support and any assistance needed to ensure public safety.

Which was weird stuff, given that the jury did its duty, and unlike the prosecutor, brought no misconduct to the table as they rendered their verdict over four days. A minor child had been attacked by four violent adult career criminals, at least two of whom were armed with loaded weapons thrust into Rittenhouse's face, at least one stated his intent to kill, and at the trial, the jury concluded that the child had acted in self-defense, which is one of the oldest rights recognized in western civilization, with comparable laws affirming it in every state and every nation derived from British law.

'Heal our country's wounds?' 'Every American treated equally, with fairness and dignity, under the law?' He says that like it never happened at this valid jury trial marred only by repeated instances of prosecutorial misconduct.

What 'wounds' is he talking about? And what's his claim to 'unfairness' about? The jury weighed the evidence, which is something he didn't do (he didn't even watch the trial), assessed the evidence, including considerable video evidence, weighed it against the law, and rendered a verdict, which required an aquittal. They did so under rather frightening pressure from both baying mobs outside threatening them and a despicable MSNBC reporter who attempted to stalk them, running a red light to keep his tail on the jury bus, likely to illegally determine their identities so that he could doxx them for the baying mobs who wanted to know where they lived.

That sudden shift in statements is significant, as it suggests very clearly that someone else is running the show. The first response was Joe's own point of view, stated what most people were thinking -- that the jury had spoken, and was mainly informed by Joe's fear of riots, given that riots have dragged Democrat approval ratings down, During the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots, (of which Kenosha was one), Democrats learned that sticking up for rioters had consequences for their poll numbers. Once that happened, the cheering stopped.

The second statement seems to have been written by someone else, someone with access to a White House letterhead and the password to the White House website. It was far more conventional MSNBC-style leftwing thinking on the jury's verdict. The main thing it tells us is that someone else is calling the shots at the White House, because it's not senile Joe. That someone has enormous sympathies with antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters, given the point of view taken.

It's a sorry thing given that Joe's the one who's supposed to be running the country. Someone behind the scenes actually is. According to the Conservative Treehouse, it's actually a two-headed monster comprised of AME activists and former President Obama's control on the Democratic National Committee.

The Obama/Clyburn strategy succeeds through advanced Astroturf operations; that’s why they need BLM and ANTIFA.  Additionally, to attain maximum benefit for their domestic transformation, they need to keep the DEMOCRAT Party base voters focused on social issues, race etc.  All of this is by design…. including the emphasis on distracting things…. while everything that really matters is happening somewhere else.

Meanwhile, Biden's running mate, Kamala Harris, made this puppet-regime dynamic even more obvious.

When the verdict was rendered, Harris said this:


She was sticking to a script, She had smeared Rittenhouse as an "extremist' and "vigilante" a few days earlier: Which was strange stuff coming from her. What is this 'work to do' you speak of, Kamosabe? The one thing that went wrong in that trial was the extraordinary bad behavior of the prosecutor -- who was caught hiding evidence, sassing the judge, pointing a gun straight at the jury, Alex Baldwin-style without checking if it was loaded, his finger on the trigger, questioning the accused's right to silence, and smearing the kid with false characterizations that have no place in a courtroom. This isn't the half of it. But Harris has just that kind of record herself as prosecutor. Remember this? Which was strange stuff coming from her. What is this 'work to do' you speak of, Kamosabe? The one thing that went wrong in that trial was the extraordinary bad behavior of the prosecutor -- who was caught hiding evidence, sassing the judge, pointing a gun straight at the jury, Alex Baldwin-style without checking if it was loaded, his finger on the trigger, questioning the accused's right to silence, and smearing the kid with false characterizations that have no place in a courtroom. This isn't the half of it. But Harris has just that kind of record herself as prosecutor. Remember this? Harris was a prosecutor little different from that Binger fellow who showed such disrespect for a fair trial and the rule of law, a guy who actually ought to be disbarred for his atrocious behavior. She fits right in with the mysterious forces that seem to be controlling Biden, the Treehouse argues. Biden of course, smeared Rittenhouse a couple months before he "won" the presidency:

When he was asked about it, and whether he'd issue an apology for trying to slant the trial and smear the defendant, he didn't seem to know that the tweet had been sent. Perhaps that was because the Other Forces were in control.

So now Biden and Harris have been told to disparage the valid trial and by implication the citizen jury which did its best to render a fair verdict in a bid to keep their antifa and Black Lives Matter allies happy, with racial grievance-mongering still at the forefront of the news. It's irresponsible as it gets. It's also very unpresidential. Show zero respect for the little guys on the jury and the independent judge and it ultimately shows that one has no respect for the other branches of our representative democracy with its necessarily divided government. Biden now expects American to respect his role in the presidency? If he's going to be going around disparaging other branches of government, he should not be surprised to see that come back to bite him. It demonstrates his unfitness for the office he holds. Who's really running things in this Joe Biden-Kamala Harris "presidency"?

Image: Screen shot from Fox Business video, via shareable YouTube


Monica Showalter


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Democrat coalition is starting to implode - Andrea Widburg


​ by Andrea Widburg

A political party tied together only by a shared sense of victimhood is inevitably going to collapse—as is happening with the College Democrats of America.

Politico published a delightful story the other day about the fact that an entity called the College Democrats of America, which is the official Democrat party body on American college and university campuses, is imploding so quickly that the Democrat National Committee is thinking about disassociating itself from that body. The problem is that the left’s much-vaunted “intersectionality” and “diversity” are unsustainable in a party that views the world as a small pie, with every victim group vying for top victim status and the biggest slice.

The article’s title and subtitle spell out the problem:

Allegations of bigotry and calls for impeachment rock College Democrats: The situation is so bad that the DNC is considering disaffiliation with the national organization.

Honestly, when you read something like that, you just can’t stop yourself from smiling. And the beauty of the whole thing is that the facts adduced in the article live up to the promise given in the title:

The College Democrats of America — the Democratic Party’s national organization presiding over 500 chapters on campuses across the country — is in turmoil.

The group’s leaders are publicly firing off accusations of anti-Blackness, Islamaphobia and anti-Semitism at each other. Impeachment proceedings are now in the works against the organization’s new vice president, Nourhan Mesbah, who is Muslim. College Democrats say that screenshots of tweets that their peers sent in adolescence spread rapidly through group texts, which already caused a student running for president of the group to withdraw their candidacy in September. And national advocacy groups for Muslim and Jewish Americans are now weighing in with criticism.

The conflict has gotten so messy that the Democratic National Committee is considering disaffiliating with the national collegiate organization altogether and creating a partnership with the state groups underneath the national umbrella, according to a Democrat familiar with the discussions. The DNC declined to comment.

The rest of the article continues in the same vein, detailing the details of the battles within the organization. I can assure you that you’ll enjoy reading it.

None of this is a surprise, of course, to outside observers. The first giveaway, because anti-Semitism is always the canary in the coalmine of a troubled organization or society, was the Democrat party’s escalating anti-Semitism. That really came to the fore beginning with the Women’s Marches back in 2017, against Trump. By 2019, Jewish women complained that they were being sidelined, abused, and expelled—something inevitable when Linda Sarsour, a doctrinaire Muslim “feminist” emerged as one of the leading voices in the movement. The problem worsened when it became clear that the Squad, which has had Nancy Pelosi shaking in her Ferragamos, shared in that anti-Semitism—and that the mainline Democrats weren’t going to push back.

Image: An example of the College Dems’ racial obsessions. YouTube screen grab.

True conservatives (a group to which many Republican politicians have only the weakest allegiance) are bound together by their values, all grounded in the Constitution: Patriotism, individual liberty, a free market made up of moral people, sovereign borders, and a government that protects Americans from evil-doers, both foreign and domestic.


Andrea Widburg


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Don’t Ask About Empty Shelves, Our Leaders are Too Busy Saving the World - Daniel Greenfield


​ by Daniel Greenfield

What makes world leaders who can’t fix the most basic problems think they can change the climate?


While the supply chain crisis left American store shelves bare, Biden went to a UN climate conference to save the world. Saving the world is a whole lot easier than stocking shelves. Ask any teenager.

Saving the world used to be the preoccupation of dilettante intellectuals who could solve all of the problems of the world in their heads, but couldn’t handle the simplest life tasks. The rise of socialism has reduced much of the world to the same grandiose incompetence. The western world has been put into the hands of men and women who can’t get anything done, but promise to change the world.

Like the Soviet Union and other Communist countries, we have become a nation of moral crusaders and misery where goods shortages are papered over with wars against intangible social problems. Public officials no longer solve problems, like ivory tower academics they delve into root causes and produce theories explaining why the problems can’t be solved without changing society and humanity.

It’s as if you invited a plumber to fix your toilet only to lectured about the history of plumbing in ancient Egypt, gender roles, and social expectation while your toilet goes on flooding the floor.

While Democrats go down the rabbit hole of root causes, their cities are overrun with crime and human waste, prices for everything skyrocket, and some goods can no longer be had at any price. Confronted with this reality, they build walls of words, seizing on talking points to convince the public that the problems don’t exist or that they’re actually symptoms of deep social problems going back centuries even though they only date back to last week. Either approach frees them from having to solve them.

Do elites turn socialist as they become more incompetent or do they become more incompetent as they embrace socialism? The chicken and the egg problem that made even formerly prosperous Eastern European and Latin American countries into miserable failed states, that divided the two Koreas between booming industry and mass hunger, is arriving in America with much the same outcome.

American bureaucracy is bigger than ever. The growth of administrators in every field outpaces that of ordinary workers, clients, and products produced. No single decree from a scowling boss in Moscow turned a booming nation of individualists into a timid managerial state with endless rules that apply to every facet of work and everyday life. It was the slow accumulation of individual inertia, cultural safetyism, and crises, real and manufactured, that fossilized into a state of permanent administration.

The hunger of the administrative state for more power and the natural insecurities of its wards gave us everything from the welfare state to universal masking. The shutdowns and mandates of the pandemic are only the latest inevitable development from a system that reacts to every crisis with collective panics that transfer power from the public to unelected bureaucrats. Whatever the details of a crisis, its primary function is to generate more regulations and more overseers to see everyone follows them.

None of these regulations do anything except generate more insecurity and seize more power. Each succeeding generation views unrestricted freedom as an increasingly alien condition. A generation terrified of the Second Amendment birthed a generation terrified of the First Amendment. Each set of restrictions is deemed insufficient by the frightened generation that is raised under their rule.

If you think today’s college students are snowflakes, wait until the children who were raised to fear their own parents as sources of infection and to wear masks everywhere finally come of age.

It’s no great challenge to convince a society of frightened people that the end of the world is near.

Call it the ice age, global warming, climate change, or whatever panic brand replaces them when the marketers and pollsters decide that the current term is insufficiently triggering: to people who have been taught to be afraid of everything the end of the world is an entirely plausible scenario.

Environmentalism, like every root cause crisis, tells us to be afraid of ourselves. The terror of our words, our faces, our thoughts, and our possessions has always haunted the Left. Where visionaries saw possibilities, socialism has only seen threats. Its promises to save the world don’t spring from a place of courage, but of fear of others and of the inability of its acolytes to come to grips with real life.

Those who can, do. And those who can’t, warn others that doing anything is the root of all evil.

What else could such a worldview bring forth other than the incompetence, corruption, and tyranny that we see all around us. Problems become power grabs and so there’s no incentive to solve them, only to make them worse. Leftist ideology rationalizes most problems as inherently unsolvable in the short term, only in some long term utopian eventuality that reboots all of human society around its ideals.

Problems like empty store shelves or crime in the streets are ultimately caused by capitalism, individualism, the nuclear family, and the existence of humanity. There’s no solving them without addressing root causes like human nature, civilization, and the survival instinct. Like the USSR, the goal posts for solving even the most mundane problems get moved all the way into infinity.

This arrangement is quite convenient for the bureaucracies, public and private, from which leftist systems and ideologies draw their power. It frees teachers not to teach, companies not to innovate, and officials not to solve problems even as they organize moral crusades against the end of the world.

The true purpose of bureaucracy is always to eliminate competition. The chaos of individualism is collectively managed by stultifying regulations whose goal isn’t fixing problems, but preventing surprises. The administrative state can accept the deaths of millions as long as it follows the rules. That’s why all the administrators who forced nursing homes to accept coronavirus infected patients were never held responsible for the mass deaths that resulted from their horrifying decisions.

Most were even rewarded.

The pandemic shutdowns weren’t motivated by fear of infections, but of unscheduled and uncontrolled infections. The administrative state doesn’t mind people dying, as long as they decide who dies.

And who lives.

World leaders fleeing problems at home to talk global warming at the UN’s COP26 are leaving behind real challenges that they’ve given up trying to solve and are saving the world. What makes leaders like Biden or Boris Johnson, Merkel or Trudeau, who have badly screwed up the prosaic problems they were tasked with believe that they can change the climate when they can’t do much smaller things?

Western leaders no longer tackle real problems that can be solved, only imaginary ones that can’t. Like their socialist forebears they define an overwhelming problem, economic classes, systemic racism, or climate change, and then spend all their time at seminars on how to best tackle its root causes. The solution invariably involves moving money around in ways that favor them and their power base.

This brand of messianic workshopped Communism is even worse than the original because actual Communist regimes at least cared about production while wealthy western leftists outsource production to third world countries so they can spend more time fighting systemic racism or the weather.

Our shortages may be currently less severe than those of a proper Communist dictatorship, but our leaders are even more detached from the basic responsibility of elected officials which is not to “safeguard democracy”, but to justify their work to the system and the people who elected them.

With Biden, America skipped past Lenin and Stalin to go right to the Brezhnev era with senescent apparatchiks overseeing the decline of a country and an economy they don’t actually understand.

America’s elites, bad or good, used to understand how things actually worked. And then they became the products of Ivy League institutions which traded practical skills for abstract theories. Our elites have learned how to lie to us and to rob us, and tell us it’s for our own good, and how to retreat into academic theories to avoid dealing with reality. They’ve learned how to manipulate the artificial systems of bureaucracy and its abstract rule sets, but know next to nothing about the real world.

They’re happy to save the world. Just don’t ask them where the beef is.


Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center specializing in investigative reporting on the Left and Islamic terrorism.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

President Xi Spanks Biden in Video Call - Robert Spencer


​ by Robert Spencer

Taiwan must prepare.


If you’re looking for more indication that Old Joe Biden is unfit to be president of the United States, you never have to look very long. On Monday, Biden had a virtual meeting with the president of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping. Although this tête-à-tête was reported as lasting nearly four hours, the White House issued only a skimpy six-paragraph “Readout” of what was discussed. Given the fact that even the White House itself often depicts Biden as barely coherent, it’s easy to see why a transcript of this marathon meeting wasn’t offered. Another reason becomes clear even from the White House’s terse “Readout”: Xi spanked the weak and feckless pseudo-president, and got him back into line.

Of course, even though it is brief, the “Readout” is larded with a great deal of the usual boilerplate. “The two leaders” (since they’re both evidently playing for the same socialist team, shouldn’t that be “the two Great Leaders”?), we’re told, “discussed the complex nature of relations between our two countries and the importance of managing competition responsibly.” Hey, that’s terrific, but really, can you imagine Old Joe holding a credible discussion on the complex nature of anything? Imagine if the transcript were released! “Look, Pooh, here’s the deal…”

But actually, Biden wouldn’t have dared to say “here’s the deal” to Xi, because it was clear from the “Readout” that the Chinese Communist leader, not the ostensible president, was calling the shots. “On Taiwan,” it noted blandly, “President Biden underscored that the United States remains committed to the ‘one China’ policy, guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances, and that the United States strongly opposes unilateral efforts to change the status quo or undermine peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”

This statement was necessary to sort out the mess Biden made during a CNN town hall on Oct. 21, when he was asked whether the United States would defend Taiwan if it were attacked by the People’s Republic. “Yes,” said the old puppet precipitously, “we have a commitment to do that.”

Well, actually the situation was more complicated. As Reuters noted at the time, “While Washington is required by law to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself, it has long followed a policy of ‘strategic ambiguity’ on whether it would intervene militarily to protect Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack.” In walking back Biden’s remarks, a White House spokesperson made it clear that the alleged man in charge was actually going off half-cocked, and the United States would not intervene militarily if China were attacked: “The U.S. defense relationship with Taiwan is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act. We will uphold our commitment under the Act, we will continue to support Taiwan’s self-defense, and we will continue to oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo.”

The Chinese Communists were not pleased even after that “clarification” was issued. People’s Republic foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said: “China urges the U.S. to strictly abide by the one-China principle and the provisions of the China-U.S. Three Joint Communiqués, be cautious in its words and deeds on the Taiwan issue, and refrain from sending any wrong signals to the separatist forces of Taiwan independence, so as not to seriously damage China-U.S. relations, peace, and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”

And now, in their endless meeting, Old Joe has assured Xi that the U.S. will do just that. The “strategic ambiguity” is gone, with all the deterrent power it had over China even absent U.S. military intervention. Thus Communist China is essentially free to do what it wishes with Taiwan. Xi and his colleagues knew this already: as the catastrophe in Afghanistan was just beginning in mid-August, Global Times, a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) organ, published an editorial that sent a harsh message to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the ruling party of the Republic of China on the island of Taiwan: “The DPP authorities need to keep a sober head, and the secessionist forces should reserve the ability to wake up from their dreams. From what happened in Afghanistan, they should perceive that once a war breaks out in the Straits, the island’s defense will collapse in hours and the U.S. military won’t come to help.”

They were right. Old Joe has now confirmed that. He has also confirmed that it is Xi and the People’s Republic, not the United States, that is in charge now. The U.S. during the regime of Joe Biden’s handlers will not offer a serious challenge to Chinese hegemony. And so the residents of Taiwan must prepare for a very difficult future.


Robert Spencer


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Enslavement of the Black by the White: 'The Bedrock of the West'? - Drieu Godefridi


​ by Drieu Godefridi

In short, there is nothing specifically Western about slavery; but everything specifically Western about abolitionism.

  • The "1619 Project" literature is characteristic of today's neo-racist movement, which reduces the West to slavery and slavery to the West. In this nursery rhyme, everyone born with white skin is wrong, if not satanic.

  • The Republic of Venice (697-1797 AD) made a specialty of transporting shiploads of white slaves from Northern and Eastern Europe to Constantinople and from the Black Sea to North Africa.

  • The origins of slavery are white. It is just a timely reminder that slavery is an integral part of human history components and that the practice of slavery is not the prerogative of any particular group. "Slavery", as Paul Louis reminds us, "is one of the few features that were common to all civilisations".

  • Slavery is not a moral choice, it is a financial one. Large US companies and pension funds rush to invest in China despite its reported use of Uyghurs there as slaves.

  • Regrettably, there was no movement in the Muslim world comparable to Western abolitionism. The West, led by a fiercely abolitionist British state, was the one stopping and then breaking the millennia-old and perfectly-oiled slavery mechanism of the Arab-Turkish-Muslim world.

  • In short, there is nothing specifically Western about slavery; but everything specifically Western about abolitionism.

The origins of slavery are white. Slavery is an integral part of human history, and the practice of slavery is not the prerogative of any particular group. The Republic of Venice (697-1797 AD) made a specialty of transporting shiploads of white slaves from Northern and Eastern Europe to Constantinople and from the Black Sea to North Africa. Pictured: "The way in which Christian prisoners are sold as slaves at the Algiers market," an engraving from 1684 by Jan Luyken. (Image source: Amsterdam Historic Museum/Wikimedia Commons)

In August 2019, The New York Times initiated The 1619 Project, consisting of a collection of articles designed to illustrate that slavery was "one primary reason the colonists fought the American Revolution". This project is directed by Nikole Hannah-Jones, a New York Times staff reporter who is not a historian but an avowed "critical race theory" activist. [2]

When American historians denounced the obvious falsehood of this assertion, and its revisionist and negationist nature against proven, documented and source-based historical reality, The New York Times altered the original version of the articles in question to say "some" colonists fought to defend the practice of slavery. The New York Times stated:

"We recognise that our original language could be read to suggest that protecting slavery was a primary motivation for all of the colonists. The passage has been changed to make clear that this was a primary motivation for some of the colonists."[3]

This modest "clarification", so superficial that The New York Times only bothered to make it after a large mobilisation of historians, destroys the essence of the 1619 Project, which is to show that slavery is supposedly the foundation of American society and the ideal in which American revolutionaries were macerating. Moreover, to say that "some colonists" thought this way is completely meaningless, in the same way that "some colonists" had brown eyes or had nightmares.[4] It should be noted that many colonists, including Quakers[5], vehemently opposed slavery and worked tirelessly on both sides of the Atlantic until they finally achieved its abolition.

The 1619 Project literature is characteristic of today's neo-racist movement, which reduces the West to slavery and slavery to the West. In this nursery rhyme, everyone born with white skin is wrong, if not satanic.

The meaning of the word slave, from the mediaeval Latin word sclavus, meaning "slavic" in the seventh century, shifted to "slave" in the 10th century[6]. This was the great century of slavery that saw the Arabs of North Africa, the Byzantines and the Europeans enslave vast populations. French Historian Alexandre Skirda explains:

"These Slavs from Central and Eastern Europe, Orthodox Christians were considered heretics and devoid of 'soul', thus 'talking goods' were sold to the Muslim world from the 8th to the 18th century. Thus, today's Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians, Moldavians, Bielorussians, Ukrainians and Russians were captured by the Franks and Scandinavians first, relayed then from the 12th to the 15th centuries by the Venetians and Genoese; finally, the Crimean Tatars would continue the trade on behalf of the Ottoman Empire, a phenomenon that will affect millions of victims in total".[7]

The Republic of Venice (697-1797 AD) made a specialty of transporting shiploads of white slaves from Northern and Eastern Europe to Constantinople and from the Black Sea to North Africa. According to English Historian Peter Akroyd:

"The Venetians were greedy for this particular source of income since the profit on each item was said to be 1,000 per cent. They sold Russians and even Greek Christians to the Saracens. Men, women, and children were purchased or captured in the region of the Black Sea, Armenians and Georgians among them, before being despatched to Venice, where they were in turn sold to Egypt, Morocco, Crete and Cyprus. They sold boys and young women as concubines."[8]

The origins of slavery are white. It is just a timely reminder that slavery is an integral part of human history and that the practice of slavery is not the prerogative of any particular group. "Slavery", as Paul Louis[9] reminds us, "is one of the few features that were common to all civilisations". [10]

Slavery is not a moral choice; it is a financial one. Large US companies and pension funds rush to invest in China despite its reported use of Uyghurs there as slaves. Historically, slavery was everywhere. The realization of its inhumanity was not broached until its antithesis, the affluent society, appeared. [11] We are so accustomed to abundance that we have forgotten that it is a recent miracle, tiny in its historical extent. The tension of the "golden thread of civilisation"(Ernst Jünger[12]) is preceded by thousands of years of need, reducing the current commendable revulsion against it to a historical footnote.

In many societies, especially in ancient times, slavery represented an improvement in the status quo ante. In these societies, the previous usual fate of the defeated had been extermination. Paul Louis writes:

"In the eyes of the Assyrians, Romans, and Egyptians, slavery was not a monstrous violation of the person but a mitigation of the fate of captives, a first reaction against the savage law of primitive warfare. This law (...) involved the massacre of the defeated, the total annihilation of the army that had suffered defeat. The kings of Egypt and Assyria took glory from the number of their victims. (...) Carnage was the final incident of any battle". [13]

Let us leave the possible financial and political motives of the American neo-racists for a moment and take a look at the worldwide situation of slavery in 1750.

In China, the Qing dynasty, in power since 1644, continued the practice of slavery, which had been inseparable from the birth of Chinese civilisation.[14] The absolute number of slaves in China is striking, but according to Angela Schottenhammer, a historian at the University of Leuven, this number seems never to have exceeded 1% in relation to the total Chinese population.[15]

In North Africa, Muslim regimes imported shiploads of white slaves, Slavs and Europeans. Prague long served as a sorting centre for the castration of white slaves [16] before they were transported to the Maghreb. These Slavic and European slaves were used for domestic and sexual slavery and sometimes for military duties. The Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire formed an elite military corps composed mainly of white slaves. [17]

In what is now India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Islamic conquerors imposed slavery from the eighth century and practised it on an unprecedented scale. Hindu women and children were forced into domestic and sexual slavery. Endless convoys of Hindu slaves were continually sent to what is now Syria and Iraq, and then to the Muslim-controlled international slave markets. The practice of slavery in this region extended, uninterrupted, from the eighth to the eighteenth century.[18]

In the eighteenth century, throughout the world slavery was a normal institution, as normal as it was in ancient Greece[19] and was practised on a large scale. There are recognisable nuances. "Compared to the European-organized slave trade, the Muslim world's slave trade started earlier, lasted longer, and, more importantly, involved a larger number of slaves", notes Economist Paul Bairoch in Le génocide voilé : enquête historique.[20] The Franco-Senegalese Tidiane N'Diaye notes that, while millions of Black Americans can claim a slave heritage, there is almost nothing left of the millions of black slaves in Islamic lands. Indeed, they were often castrated.[21] "The Arab-Muslim trade in black Africans involved 17 million victims who were killed, castrated or enslaved for more than 13 centuries without interruption", says N'Diaye, whose powerful and moving investigation completes the book The Slave Trade: A Global History Essay, published by Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau in 2006.

Is this "normality of slavery", until Western modernity put an end to it, deplorable and unacceptable? Absolutely. From the standpoint of our values, there is no doubt. We find the enslavement of men, women and children horrendous; however, we are not what Raymond Aron contemptuously called "beautiful souls" who judge the world as if they were handing out sweets.[22] It is easy to hurl imprecations at the past. If we institute this tribunal of times, we should at least avoid arbitrarily selecting the periods and regions considered.

In the eighteenth century, slavery was not practised in the same way everywhere. While it was not contested in the Muslim world -- whose economic relationship to slavery, which was completely unrestrained, resembled that of the ancient Greeks -- it was already being moderated in the China of the Qing dynasty.[23] The Europeans, following the British, sought to limit the practice when they could not abolish it.

In the second half of the eighteenth century, a movement arose, initially confined to the Anglo-Saxon cultural sphere, called abolitionism.[24] This movement, particularly under Christian influence, especially that of the Puritans and even the Quakers, and later the Methodists, [25] accurately regarded slavery as an abomination and demanded its abolition. Civil abolitionist societies were formed, carrying the abolitionist ideal throughout the British Empire to its very top. Once the Crown had embraced this moral imperative, it took only a few years for the abandonment of the slave trade to be decreed in the British Empire in 1807, followed the abolition of slavery in 1833.[26] As early as 1807, London had launched an ambitious international abolition campaign, imposing the abandonment of the slave trade and then of slavery on both its defeated enemies and dependent allies. At the same time, the Royal Navy established a West Africa Squadron to assist in hunting slave ships off the African coast. Between 1808 and 1860, the West Africa Squadron captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans.

Regrettably, there was no movement in the Muslim world comparable to Western abolitionism. The West, led by a fiercely abolitionist British state, was the one stopping and then breaking the millennia-old and perfectly-oiled slavery mechanism of the Arab-Turkish-Muslim world. [27]

In short, there is nothing specifically Western about slavery; but everything specifically Western about abolitionism.

To consider slavery as the foundation of the West is a revisionist and negationist lie,[28] a "conspiracy theory" [29] in the strict sense, whose evocative power is reminiscent of the formidable international career of that other crude forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. [30]

Drieu Godefridi, a classical-liberal Belgian author, is the founder of the l'Institut Hayek in Brussels. He has a PhD in Philosophy from the Sorbonne in Paris and also heads investments in European companies. He is also the author of Critical Race Theory.

[1] Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility, Beacon Press: 2018, 29: "the racial contract is a tacit and sometimes explicit agreement among members of the peoples of Europe to assert, promote, and maintain the ideal of white supremacy in relation to all other people of the world. (...) White supremacy has shaped a system of global European domination: it brings into existence whites and nonwhites, full persons and subpersons" and page 129: "white people raised in Western society are conditioned into a white supremacist worldview because it is the bedrock of our society and its institutions."

[2] One of the official, self-styled 'academic' denominations of neo-racist doctrine.

[3] "An Update to the 1619 Project"

[4] The trouble is that the denialist version of The 1619 Project was translated into school materials and immediately distributed throughout the United States. No "doubt" The New York Times officials personally went to each of these classes to correct their "little mistake". See "The Fatal Flaw of the 1619 Project Curriculum."

[5] The Quakers are one of the many figures of Anglo-Saxon Christian Protestantism. They are a dissent from the Anglican Church and are characterized, among other things, by their direct relationship with God and the absence of a creed and of any ecclesial hierarchy.

[6] Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau, Les traites négrières: Essai d'histoire globale, 2006.

[7] A. Skirda, The Slavic trade from the 8th to the 18th century, 2016.

[8] Peter Ackroyd, Venice: Pure City, 2010.

[9] Born Paul Lévi in 1872 in Paris and died in 1955 in Le Vésinet, Paul Louis was a French historian and journalist.

[10] Paul Louis, Le travail dans le monde romain (Paris: Félix Alcan, 1912), 51; see also Simon Webb, The Forgotten Slave Trade: The White European Slaves of Islam, 2020.

[11] J. Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses, 1926.

[12] Ernst Jünger (1895-1998) was a philosopher, a highly decorated Imperial German soldier, author, and entomologist who became publicly known for his World War I memoir Storm of Steel.

[13] Paul Louis, Work in the Roman World, 51, italics added.

[14] Richard B. Allen, Slavery and Bonded Labor in Asia, 1250–1900, 2021.

[15] Angela Schottenhammer, "Slaves and Forms of Slavery in Late Imperial China (Seventeenth to Early Twentieth Centuries)", Slavery & Abolition, 2003, 24, 2, 143–154.

[16] Christian Delacampagne, Histoire de l'esclavage. De l'Antiquité à nos jours, Paris, Le livre de poche, 2002.

[17] Raymond Ibrahim, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, Da Capo Press, 2018; David Nicolle, The Janissaries, London, Osprey Publishing, 1995.

[18] Andre Wink, Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World, vol. 1, Leiden, Brill Academic, 1991.

[19] When Hannah Arendt raves about the Greek way of life and disposition to "work", in an intellectual sense, we must not forget that it is not "the Greek" who works. It is the free Greek, a minority in ancient Greece. In Athens, Sparta and all the cities of the Aegean basin, in Anatolia and in the Italian boot, the overwhelming majority of people were slaves. In the fourth century B.C., the tyrant Demetrios of Phalerus organised a general census of Attica, which yielded the following figures: 21,000 citizens, 10,000 métèques [foreigners] and 400,000 slaves. See. Raymond Descat, Esclave en Grèce et à Rome, Paris, Hachette, 2006.

[20] Paul Bairoch, Mythes et paradoxes de l'histoire économique, La Découverte, 1994, 204.

[21] The castration of slaves throughout the millennium of Arab-Turkish-Muslim slavery is a constant, as the British scholar Simon Webb reminds us in his remarkable study of white European (non-Slavic) slaves captured in Europe by Arab-Muslim slavers (The Forgotten Slave Trade: The White European Slaves of Islam, Pen & Sword History, 2020): "Castration, used very occasionally against black slaves taken across the Atlantic, was routinely carried out on an industrial scale on European boys who were exported to Africa and the Middle East. "

[22] Raymond Aron, Memoirs, 621.

[23] "Slavery in Early China: A Socio-Cultural Approach", January 2001, Journal of East Asian Archaeology 3(1-2):283-331

[24] Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau, The Abolitionist Revolution, Gallimard, 2017.

[25] John Wesley, Thoughts on Slavery, 1774.

[26] The difference of a few years is explained by the desire to give the economic world of the plantations time to adapt; it is the same gradual philosophy, already implemented in Denmark, that will be adopted by the American revolutionaries. See Nelly Schmidt, L'abolition de l'esclavage : cinq siècles de combats XVIe-XXe siècle, Paris, Fayard, 2005, 353.

[27] In other words, it was the imperialist West that imposed the abolition of slavery on the Arab-Muslim world.

[28] Before joining The New York Times, Nikole Hannah-Jones, seemingly innocent of historical rigor, had already defended the thesis that Africans explored the American continent long before Europeans: 'In Racist Screed NYT's 1619 Project Founder Calls "White Race" "Barbaric Devils" "Bloodsuckers" Columbus "No Different Than Hitler",' The Federalist; that these Africans were distinguished by their cordial contacts and relations with the Aztecs – the harmonious relations of which, unfortunately, no trace remains – and that the Aztec pyramids are a "testimony" of these friendly relations: Nikole Hannah-Jones, "Modern Savagery", The Observer: The term denialist is woefully inadequate to describe this "thesis" which appears based solely on the fantasies of its author.

[29] "Complotism: trust the professionals!", Dreuz, 25 November 2020.

[30] The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a forgery created by the Russian Tsar's secret police in 1903, purports to describe the attempts of Jews and Freemasons to control the world. This forgery plagiarizes, among other things, a pastiche that humorously described Napoleon III's plan to conquer the world.


Drieu Godefridi, a classical-liberal Belgian author, is the founder of the l'Institut Hayek in Brussels. He has a PhD in Philosophy from the Sorbonne in Paris and also heads investments in European companies. He is also the author of Critical Race Theory.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter