RAISED IN UNREALITY


by Tabitha Korol

This is another in a series of children’s propagandist story books distributed to libraries nationwide and in other countries, another facet of the many war strategies used against the west, overtly about Israel, but covertly about changing opinions and accepting Islam.  The facade of victimhood is usually at play; one need only be alert to recognize how it’s employed.  

*****

Tasting the Sky, by Ibtisam Barakat, is a story told through the memories of a three-and-a-half-year-old girl in Ramallah, West Bank, the heartland of Biblical Israel and known through the centuries as Samaria.  it is categorized to be read by Middle Graders, ages 6 and up, who know nothing of the region’s history.   Without guidance, analysis and clarification, they would conclude that Israel is the interloper and Palestinians the natives, and by extension, western civilization is evil.  This is Islamic indoctrination, inappropriate for distribution.

It begins with a sketchy historical note that the conflict over the State of Israel, the background of the story, continues to this day, but the conflict’s origin is ignored.  For over fourteen centuries, Arabs have been following Mohammed’s decrees by attacking and slaughtering the Jews within the land and brutalizing Christians, Romans, Persians, Ethiopians, Berbers, Turks, Visigoths, Franks, Egyptians, Indians, and more, elsewhere.  Unable to deny 1400 years of Jewish presence in the land, the Arabs embellish the discord with lies of shared history, prophets, and archaeology.  But the land has only ever been the ancestral homeland of the Jews, who reestablished their national independence in Israel after 2,000 years, its legality endorsed by the United Nations, in 1948.  Israel also received the recognition of Yusaf Diya al-Khaldi Mayor of Jerusalem (1899), Lord Robert Cecil (1918), Emir Faisal, leader of the Arab World (1919); and Sir Winston Churchill (1920).

To devalue Israel’s legitimacy, the author alleges that the State of Israel was founded solely because of the Holocaust, but that is not the case.  “Zion” is the age-old name for Jerusalem; “Zionism” is love of Zion, and the national liberation movement begun in the late 1800s with the creation of 20 new Jewish cities in what was then called Palestine (a Roman appellation).  It is also the political movement of restoration and return founded by Theodor Herzl in 1897, decades before the Holocaust.  After World War I, when Iraq, Lebanon and Syria were created from the defeated Ottoman Empire, so were Palestine’s boundaries created and recognized as the Jewish homeland.  This is what Mohammed’s successors repudiate.  Israel’s capital, Jerusalem, established 1000 BCE, has held a majority Jewish population since the late 1860s.

Barakat’s personal story begins at age 19, returning home from Birzeit, West Bank, where activist students ignore the barbaric crimes of Islamist groups – lynching, beheading, whipping, crucifixion, castration, rape-to-death, burning alive and other unspeakable tortures – but fight with Israeli soldiers, protesting the “occupation.”  “Occupier” is legal terminology that does not apply to Israel, as Israel’s legal title and rights were established in the San Remo resolution, adopted by the Allied Powers after World War I, confirmed by the League of Nations, and incorporated into the UN charter. Calling Israel an occupier is equal to calling the Arabs occupiers of Arabia.   This is “projection,” attributing one’s own qualities or ideas to another.  After losing their aggressive war in 1967, they self-identified as Palestinians and occupy this land as their strategy.

In the book, Ibtisam is returning to Ramallah, once a Christian city, now renamed “Hill of Allah” by Arab forces that took the town in the first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-49.  When her bus is stopped at an Israeli checkpoint, she expresses fear for passengers’ showing their ID and tickets, although identification is commonplace at border crossings between jurisdictions.  Because Palestinians have proven an aggressive people, Israelis also check for weapons or passengers swathed in explosives, their parents’ sacrifices to Allah for monetary reward.  The naïve readers are influenced to fear.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operate on strict commands that, as representatives of Israel, they must behave with humanity.  Passengers are not raped, tortured, or beheaded.  Rather, once cleared, they are free to proceed.  In fact, Palestinians have begun producing fictitious film enactments to blame Israelis for mistreatment because they cannot confirm their claims, Israelis being known for their morality.  The author even writes that one soldier attempts to return her fare because they will be rerouted to the  Military Rule Center, a detention center.

As her story unfolds, she is three years old when an Israeli soldier comes to their house and allegedly makes sexual gestures to her mother.  Mother tells Father that she fears rape if he returns, but I question why he didn’t rape her right then.  The accusation is possible but since Ibtisam’s story is fraught with fabrications, both the checkpoint accusation and this one might be projections.   Muslim men have endangered the streets of Germany, France, and London, and made Sweden the Rape Capital of the West and India, the Rape Capital of the World. Mother could assume the same of Israeli soldiers.

Israelis are held accountable for their actions under Israeli law; rape is not sanctioned as in Islam.  A noteworthy phenomenon: reports indicate the lack of Israel’s military rape, which “merely strengthens the ethnic boundaries and clarifies the inter-ethnic differences – just as organized military rape would have done.”   A Seattle university professor declared at a BDS event, “You IDF soldiers don’t rape Palestinian women because Israelis are so racist and disgusted by them that you won’t touch them.”  In any case, Father accepts Mother’s word and they leave.

As Ibtisam’s bus is en route to the detention center, she ponders her postal box, her foreign pen pals, and recalls her father’s nightmares as he relived his loss of freedom in 1967.  He’d told his children that the war came to them, not that five Arab nations initiated an offensive against the new Israel in 1948.  He excluded that the Arabs ignored the UN and Israel’s decision to designate Jerusalem an international city, home to Israelis and Arabs.  Instead, they forced the Jews out, destroying graveyards and at least 50 percent of the city’s synagogues.  Nineteen years later, 1967, following Israel’s warning that Nasser’s closure of the Straits of Tiran against Israeli shipping and his forces mobilized at the border would be casus belli, Israel preempted Egypt’s action by destroying its air force and initiating a ground offensive.  The result was Israel’s acquisition of the West Bank/Judea-Samaria, the Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula, and Gaza.  Although Israel immediately offered to return land for peace, the Arab governments refused to talk or recognize Israel.  Father’s story is misleading; the reader misled.

The author recalls June 5, 1967.  She is three when Father returns from work without his usual treats, announcing that Israeli planes are targeting Palestinians, soldiers combing their homes and butchering everyone.  Again, this is untrue, but projection.  (Mohammed’s conquests included beheading the men and enslaving the women.)  The Arab countries initiate, and Israeli forces repel, the onslaught, yet the Israeli government nevertheless invites the Arab residents to remain safely in their homes and become citizens.  Some families stay, but many heed their own army’s orders to go to Jordan or the caves, expecting to return triumphant.  Mother and children escape with the rest; father leaves to see if he can be of help.

Yes, Ibtisam remembers gun shots, air raids, but she cannot name the aggressor, and the reader assumes they run to escape the Israelis.  The child knows they lost the war, her home, and her shoes. and they cannot return to Ramallah.  Her mother is 24,  with three children in tow, ages 8, 7, and 3,  and she soon gives birth to her fourth child.  Father is 44.  At the time of their marriage, Mother was 15, Father 35.  In a culture where there is no loving courtship, marriage is described as a series of rapes interrupted by childbirth.

When a little boy has drowned in the river, they say the water stole him.  We often see signs of Islamic projection.  The young reader cannot alone grasp that Muslims take no responsibility for their behaviors, attacks or plight, and lies are routine.   With the announcement that they “lost Palestine” comes the stinging victimization, not the realization that their wounds were self-inflicted.

Radio announcements of refugees who may return to the new Israel include Ibtisam’s family, but many are refused entry to their countries of origin, the surrounding countries that pursued war.

And because so much of the humanitarian aid is redirected to the Palestinian Authority, for weapons and payments to families of “martyrs” who are killed while killing Israelis, the dispossessed are destined for neglect for generations to come, their victimhood worsened, their futures bleak.  To this day, they blame Israel for “colonizing their land,” when there is no evidence that “Palestinians” were ever an identifiable people, with history, government, culture or language.  They were Arabs from surrounding lands or nomadic Bedouins.

Facts are facts: Jews (Hebrews) are the indigenous people of what the Romans called Palaestina.  Despite Israel’s overtures of peace, unilaterally returning land to Egypt and Lebanon, and signing a peace treaty with Jordan, Palestinians continue their attacks.  Do the young readers see Israel’s offers of peace and opportunities to prosper?  Do they know that the Palestinians refuse?

Back in Ramallah, the Israeli soldiers marching in formation down the streets, armed but carrying Israeli flags and “chanting” (singing), are a source of anxiety and entertainment.  When Ibtisam hears “sounds of war,” she does not know that they are the Palestinians’ ongoing, daily attacks against Israelis – throwing rocks and missiles at Israeli vehicles, firing rockets and mortar into Israel, or youths hurling firebombs at troops who then return fire with their weapons.   The Palestinians are consistent.  They will continue to attack until one day, with Allah’s help, they expect success.  Meanwhile, generations of people endure in stagnant misery and perceived victimhood.

When Jamel Abdel Nasser dies, Father exclaims, “Now we are all orphans.”  It is likely that Father, if not mother also, has his roots in Egypt.  “Barakat” is a Muslim name, and common to Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh; its definition is “blessings.”  When the women of the family gather for the boys’ circumcision, dressed in “the styles of hundreds of years,” the embroidery may indicate their country’s design, or that of the nomadic Bedouin.  It cannot represent a Palestinian country that never existed.

Ibtisam’s family has survived whole, parents and six children, but there are others who have endured much hardship.  She does not  speak of the many victims of the Palestinian leadership’s greed and complete disregard to the people’s suffering.  During the same years since 1948, while Israelis create a prosperous nation, are happy, and live in comparative freedom and security, generations of Palestinians wallow in poverty, hardship, self-pity and resentment – squandered lives with the fear of another war looming over their heads.    This book has hidden many truths, and a new generation of readers grows up to take on Mohammed’s legacy of war, to side with the tyranny of Islam and resent the freedoms of Israel and America.   Rather than reading propaganda, American children should be learning more about the humble beginnings and magnificence of America’s ideals and, by extension, Israel’s.

 

Tabitha Korol

https://tinyurl.com/y7e6z63d

Ascent to the Summit   


by Tabitha Korol

Can two men who meet in the name of peace be truly capable of declaring what is right and just for the entire world?

 

Early February 2019 ushered in a momentous event, the joint signing of a covenant, “The Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together,“ by the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmed el-Tayeb, the head of Sunni Islam, and the Roman Pope Francis for a One World Religion.  The historic ceremony was held in front of religious leaders of other faiths as a call for peace between nations, religions and races, although historically, Islamic peace is never achieved and it is they who continue to wage war.  The declaration of peace, freedom, and women’s rights is indeed a beautiful document as described by Vatican News.  Yet the imam is one man and the Islamic blood lust has maintained its presence in our world for 1400 years as a tribute to its founder, affecting even its own with intimidation and rules of torture, murder and suicide. Islam is the one religion that has been incompatible with the others and the Pope would do well to question whether Catholicism and the others would be willing to relinquish their own laws to accommodate the one that demands their elimination, in the quest for peace and a one-world religion.

Indonesian Muslim scholars also agreed to boost harmony and spirituality over the violence of the past by encouraging a school curriculum for “teaching Islamic history that contains the compassionate character of the prophet.”  The suggestion is hardly comforting if it is the same prophet who beheaded the 600 to 800 Jewish men of Medina and enslaved the women and children, and whose descendants continue to engage in the same art of decapitation by the sword and bondage into the perpetual future.

Islam is a complete 100% system of life with religion being the camouflage for the legal, political, economic, social and military components.  The Koran is designed to emotionally and physically control  every aspect of human life for the devotee and the kafir (non-Muslim) through mind control via five-times-daily prayers and speech control, as well as through threats and wanton violence. Worldwide, Muslims exercise a disproportionate influence on others and work to get the ruling government of the nation they invade to permit them self-rule, sharia, first within the confines of their limited living quarters but eventually with the immutable goal of establishing Islamic law throughout the land.   They are commanded never to assimilate in their host culture, and to destroy crosses and overtake churches.  Thus are the indigenous people victimized and engulfed.   It is safe to say that Muslims, through hijrah, are making headway in virtually all the countries of the world, although recognizably not at the same pace or using the same technique.  Muslims are a factor in 95% of the world’s wars and gaining ground, so that a totalitarian regime’s signature to such a virtually submissive pact is suspect.

Islam sees itself as superior to all other peoples and takes offense at signs of progress accomplished by cultures that preceded it.  To that end, its goals are to destroy those cultures’ histories and replace them with their own – to present themselves as the original and best of humanity when all others are gone.  Allah’s Messenger said: “By Him (Allah) in Whose Hand my soul is, surely the son of Mary [Isa (Jesus)] will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims), and will judge mankind justly by the Law of the Quran (as a just ruler) and will break the Cross and kill pigs and abolish the Jizyah [a tax] ….” (Bukhari 3:2222)

Christians who do not accept Muhammad and the Qur’an are considered the most vile of created beings: “Nor did those who were given the Scripture become divided until after there had come to them clear evidence. And they were not commanded except to worship Allah, sincere to Him in religion, inclining to truth, and to establish prayer and to give zakah (alms). And that is the correct religion. Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the most vile of created beings.” — Qur’an 98:6  It is prudent to note that while most religions give alms (tzedakah, in Hebrew), and Israel is invariably the first responder to any nations in need of help during natural disasters, Islam specifies that alms and aid not be given to those who do not honor Islam.

Just as Mohammed captured and has since had full control over Mecca and Medina, Islam established a mythic link to overtake Jerusalem, and Rome is in its sights once again as its fourth holiest city.   Vatican City is 100% surrounded by massive, 39-foot-high walls built in the 9th century for protection against the Saracen pirates who pillaged St. Peter’s in 846.  From that first jihad attack into Rome in 846, Islam declared Rome would follow the fate of Constantinople 500 years before, and the Christian basilica would become a mosque.   This, then, is tyrannical globalism and its underlying raison d’etre, with which the Pontiff has signed a peace pact.  Although his is a noble mission, without written rules of agreement and, indeed, trustworthy mutual compromises, it may still be too soon to prepare for celebration.

There is no doubt that there were some globalist spectators to the historic event, who, if included in the event, would tirelessly campaign for eliminating nationalism and border sovereignty.  To facilitate the control of the world population, they prefer overarching establishments, such as the EU (European Union) and WTO (World Trade Organization) to have control and make decisions for all others.  Can we – and should we – trust someone at the top to decide our fuel needs? food and quantity requirements? How about medicines and treatment accessibility?  our education, entertainment, and available technology?  Can the administrator be capable of making impartial, unemotional judgments, and what if he/she allows personal biases to direct the making of decisions that affect the rest of us?  We must be guided by our own local supply and demand issues, the obtainability of goods and services or be overtaken by a socialist economy that always results in scarcity, poverty, hunger, and death.

if one or some of the attendees hold communist leanings, with the belief that man is incapable of self-governing, the stronger master will be put in charge. Such an ideology controls the information circulated, the art produced, the leaders to follow and the thoughts to ponder, and leads to arrests without due cause, punishment without trial, forced labor by humans owned by the state.  Contrary to the Commandment, Thou shalt not steal, private property will be eliminated, goods commonly owned, production controlled and distributed to others, and the freedom to earn and benefit in accordance with the individual’s productions seized.

Judaism has been a persistent annoyance to Islam for 1400 years.  Would the Roman Catholic Church now consider joining Islamic forces or would Islam agree to lay down its billion swords?  Is the Holy Father aware that Islam’s open warfare has already declared, “First comes Saturday, then comes Sunday,” meaning, once Judaism is obliterated, Christianity will follow.  Yet, how can there be an agreement when even word definitions differ so drastically?  To the Pontiff, peace is the absence of war and the hope of amity throughout the lands. To the imam, peace is Allah’s blessing to make war against the infidel and bring all to submission, and it is the submission of all that is seen as peace.

Although I have no personal investment in anyone’s belief choice, I am fully attentive regarding their future deeds. I favor the continuation of the Church’s position of “subsidiarity,” which is to support, but to not interfere with, a community’s internal life, whereas Islam has its finger firmly positioned on every aspect of human and communal life.  Would Islam agree to altering the Koranic dictates and eliminate corporal  punishment in its rule or would the pope acquiesce to meting out severe pain for select insubordination?  How would their view change the people’s autonomy over their own culture, health and safety and over individual national sovereignty?  Would any group that’s given complete dominion over how we live, how we conduct our personal lives or our business affairs, and how our wealth is spent, truly rule with our best interests in mind?  Globalists seek a dictatorial society.

History has provided us with many leaders.  Would the ruler of the new globalist world be a Pericles? a Moses? a Charlemagne?  Or a Mugabe? a Pol Pot, or a Hitler?

Does the Pope understand that his new friend may represent his steadfast adversary?  Putting our future in the hands of a few is a decided threat to the United States Constitution.  We have had enough history to learn what should be obvious, that the more power is removed from the people, the more power would be consolidated to those in control.  This is a menace not to be ignored, no matter who sits at the summit.

 

Tabitha Korol


https://tinyurl.com/y7e6z63d

Blue Bloods Have Gone Oprah!


We’ve dropped this leftist travesty forever, and are now enjoying both reruns and new episodes of the quite fabulous and compelling Chicago PD!

Joan Swirsky image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesApril 18, 2020

Blue Bloods Gone OprahAmong the TV shows I gravitate to with my husband Steve, a former athlete, include live baseball, basketball and football games, historical documentaries, and both true crime shows and crime dramas like Law & Order, Forensic Files, Chicago PD, and Blue Bloods––all studies in the greatest mystery of all time, human behavior.

When Blue Bloods debuted in September 2010, we thought it was excellent, featuring in-depth and provocative episodes, and at last embodying the conservative values we embraced, including a distinct lack of the three-legged stool on which Progressives base their so-called values: moral relativism, political correctness, and multiculturalism.

The show is about the Reagan dynasty in NY City, where the following characters are presented every week with daunting challenges, moral dilemmas, high-action chases and arrests, and touching family dramas:

  • Frank Reagan, a widower and the New York Police Department (NYPD) Commissioner, played by Tom Selleck.
  • His father Henry Reagan, also a widower and a former NYPD Commissioner, played by Len Cariou.
  • Frank’s son Danny, played by Donnie Wahlberg, a tough, street-smart detective, and his partner Maria Baez (played by Marisa Ramirez). Danny was happily married to R.N.  Linda (played by Amy Carlson) before her death, and they were the parents of two sons played by real-life brothers Andrew and Tony Terraciano.
  • Frank’s daughter Erin, played by Bridget Moynihan, a letter-of-the-law Bureau Chief in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and divorced mother of daughter Nicky (played by Sami Gayle). Erin works closely with Anthony Abetemarco, a detective in the D.A.’s office (played by Steve Schirripa).
  • Frank’s son Jamie, played by Will Estes, a Harvard Law School graduate who chose to become a street cop, promoted to sergeant, and then married to his NYPD partner––a beautiful blonde from a decidedly dysfunctional background––“Eddie” Janko, played by Vanessa Ray.
  • Frank’s Chief of Staff, Garrett Moore, who is also the NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Public Information, played by Gregory Jbara.
  • I cannot omit the very gorgeous and fabulous actress Abigail Baker who plays Commissioner Reagan’s chief aide as Detective Abigail Hawk.

Suffusing the drama is the Commissioner’s late son Joe, an NYPD detective who was murdered by a corrupt gang of police officers and whose memory continues to haunt the Reagan family.

THE OLD FORMAT

Every week for the past many years, all these characters presented compelling and original drama with episodes addressing themes such as the unreliability of eyewitnesses, the difficulty of identifying sociopaths, the nefarious inner workings of the New York mafia, the dangers of nepotism within the ranks, the reluctance of sexual assault victims to come forward, the complexity of solving murder cases, on and on and on.

In every episode, it was clear that the protagonists––members of the NYPD from the top on down––knew the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, legal and illegal.

Right was the teenage kid from the projects who resisted following his thug friends into a life of crime; wrong were the thugs who chose a life of crime, including robbery, rape and murder.

Good were the people who yearned for a safe neighborhood coming forward to identify the bad guys, in spite of great risk to themselves and their families; bad were the drug dealers and corrupt politicians who covered for the bad guys.
Legal were the follow-the-rules cops who crossed every “t” and dotted every “I”; bad were the on-the-take judges who ruled against them.

Riveting. Illuminating. Thought-provoking. Influential. Worthy of our time.

THE OLD VALUES

Among the most refreshing qualities of the show was––not is––the great respect the children and grandchildren exhibited toward their father, the Commissioner, and their grandfather, the former Commissioner.

Every week, viewers were treated to the Reagan clan gathering around a huge dining-room table for a sumptuous dinner consisting of platters of roast turkey and roast beef, mountains of salad and vegetables, and heaping portions of baked and mashed potatoes, where one or another member of the family would say Grace before the meal, thank their Lord Jesus Christ for their bounty, make the sign of the Cross, and in unison say Amen.

While serious discussions and good-humored kidding took place around the table, philosophical disagreements also abounded. Yes, quizzical looks and raised eyebrows and even scowls were evinced, but there was always a refreshing absence of the dismissive, rude, hostile and insulting behavior and the repulsively foul language we’ve become accustomed to in shows ranging from newscasts to award shows to daytime talk shows to “Housewives” dramas. And there was never any sign or sight of an iPhone!

RATINGS DON’T LIE

According to Wikipedia, the pilot episode 10 years ago garnered 15,246 million viewers, and the ratings remained sky-high for about seven seasons. But from season eight on, the ratings began to plunge, with season nine seeing the lowest in the show’s history.

No mystery to me, as the Blue Bloods audience witnessed this once-terrific show go Oprah––turning into both a social service and finger-wagging forum designed to set Commissioner Frank Reagan and his unenlightened family straight, to teach them the Progressive values that the leftist writers they hired wanted them to learn: how to be a moral relativist, a multiculturalist, a politically correct jerk.

CLUELESS WRITERS

It is abundantly clear that the current writers had never watched the show, had no idea about the rock-ribbed simpatico dynamics of the Reagan family, had contempt for the police, and had a deep loathing of the Christian religion and prayer and even the mention of Jesus.

Why else would they have the always respectful sons of Frank Reagan and their grandfather Henry speak to them with such antagonistic, disrespectful language? Why would they feature rookie and even senior policemen speak to the Commissioner in such brazenly inappropriate terms? Why would they completely eliminate the prayer before eating dinner and any reference to Jesus?

Why? I know nothing about corporate media or who calls the shots and ultimately determines content. But this is an all-important election year and we already see the Murdoch boys pushing their properties––The Wall St. Journal and Fox News, among others––in a distinctly leftward direction, so it’s not a far stretch to theorize that anti-Trump CBS-TV is also pushing their popular shows along the same route.

After all, why would they drag a veteran leftist, the seemingly dotty 90-year-old Ed Asner, out of his comfortable California home to star in a preposterous episode where the writers wasted our time watching Asner and his old friend Commissioner Reagan show off their knowledge of ancient movies?

Why? Clearly the writers want to make the Commissioner look like a regular guy, to reduce his gravitas, to make him less important.

Why would they feature the toughest guy in town, Commissioner Reagan, visiting the new Mayor of NYC––who told him the City needed a tougher P.R. person than Reagan’s longtime Chief of Staff Garrett Moore––and then portray the Commissioner as an emotional, conflicted, hand-wringing wuss over a simple executive decision?

Why? Again, an attempt by the writers to make the Commissioner look incapable of taking charge and getting something done––sort of like Congressmen Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Adam Schiff (D-CA).

Of course, the goal of the real wusses who are writing this junk is to convince the viewing public that they’ve been wrong all along about Blue Bloods, that what we should really believe is that the police are the problem, prayer is the problem, Jesus is the problem, and we should vote for all the leftwing candidates who believe this tripe.

As for me and Steve, we’ve dropped this leftist travesty forever, and are now enjoying both reruns and new episodes of the quite fabulous and compelling Chicago PD!

Humiliation, a Pretext for Murder


by Tabitha Korol

I discovered a paper by the accomplished social scientist, Dr. Evelin Lindner, regarding her theory that the humiliation of a people may cause them to react in anger.  The summary by Brett Reeder, Conflict Research Consortium, of “Making Enemies: Humiliation and International Conflict,” confirmed that this was, indeed, her intent.  However, a violent reaction is by no means inevitable, but a matter of choice, and by broadcasting her assumption, she has merely provided another excuse for claiming victimhood.

By the third paragraph, it had become apparent that there would be the accusations I’d come to expect.  With a deft twist, the authoress had crafted two unproven theories as facts in order to support her beliefs. Her first statement, not in quotes by Reeder, was:

 The Versailles Treaty’s treatment of Germany after World War I is widely believed to have been a major impetus for the rise of Hitler and World War II.

Widely believed may be credible, but not factual.  Can anyone seriously posit that, had the Treaty been more reasonable, Hitler would not have risen to power?  His belief in the innate superiority of the Aryan race and its destiny to rule the world would have supplied sufficient impetus for such an amoral megalomaniac.  Guided by his personality, Hitler made a choice.

One error invariably unleashes another, and Lindner applies her humiliation-causes-anger theory to the Arab-Israeli situation:

The treatment of Jews in the Holocaust certainly contributed to Israelis’ feelings of victimhood, which is manifested, in part, by their humiliating treatment of Palestinians.

It is offensive to suggest that humiliated Holocaust survivors vented their anger on the Palestinians, but more notable is that she portrayed the first two groups, Nazis and Jews, as humiliated-turned-aggressor, but Palestinians as humiliated-remaining-passive.   A theory cannot be credible if it lacks consistency.  The good doctor displays her bias in favor of the Palestinians and against the Jews.

History has shown the Palestinians to be violent, not passive, and the question is whether their violence can be traced to alleged humiliation by the Israelis.  To do so, she had to overlook Islam’s entire 1400-year history of expansionism, atrocities, enslavement, rape and bloodshed in every nation they invaded, killing more than  669 million people.  The Palestinian heritage is Islam, and the writer ignored the innumerable pogroms against the Jews, the Armenians, and others before Israel’s sovereignty in 1948.  The Muslim attackers were neither humiliated by Israel nor passive.

Oddly, Lindner said, “humiliation destroys everything in its path,” and it “brings about depression and victimhood.”  However, despite the trials of centuries and the harsh rules under which Jews have been forced to live, they did not succumb to humiliation with anger and war, but spent their lives improving their lot.  They held fast to their identity, faith, morality, and God’s promise of returning to Zion. They comforted each other through the Inquisition, ghetto confinement, pogroms and concentration camps; and once liberated, rebuilt their vibrant country out of desert and malarial swamp.  The small country’s exceptional success reflects their confidence and innovation, energy and industry, not victimhood and humiliation. Life is a gift to be treasured, not squandered.  Given the choices of sanity and madness, the Jews chose the former.  Further, their countless offers of peace to the Palestinians indicate magnanimity, not the bitterness of past humiliation.

Victimhood is a choice that the Palestinians continue to make because it garners cash and sympathy from the world.  Israel recently delivered hundreds of coronavirus-detection kits to Gaza, but Palestinian leaders chose to foster their victimhood by concealing that help from their own and the international community and to condemn Israel for their heightened death toll.

The Palestinians elected to not to build their own country concurrently when the Jews were rebuilding theirs, during the same time and climatic conditions – although the Arabs had the oil money and funds from Europe, America, Israel and UNWRA.  They chose the victim personae.

To verify Lindner’s views that Palestinian violence is caused by the Jews’ mistreatment of them, we must examine the cherished, savored victimhood of the Palestinians and recognize that, as with a painting’s canvas, the personality must also be primed.

Islam is the basis of the blame/shame culture in which Muslims, and Palestinians specifically, are raised.  The social and psychological phenomenon of humiliation is one in which the fault in a crime is attributed entirely to the victim.  This is a coping mechanism of transference, of rationalization, characteristic of borderline personality disorder.  It is found in cultures that produce jihadis, in the children’s early nonverbal communication, their psychotic attachment to their mother, play activities that reveal their traumatic early-life experiences, and their body language that communicates emotional instability, the sadism from their earliest terrors.

The jihadi (or female jihada) has often been described as having masochistic personality disorder, obtaining gratification from the persistent degradation by humiliation, self-sacrifice and indulgent misery, thus creating the victimization.  Described as an unconscious self-punishment that results from the damaged bond with the devalued, hated mother, the jihadi is capable of committing crimes against humanity.  In mass masochism, the jihadis fuse in a non-thinking, regressed group to commit crimes and sacrifice that the population celebrates, a form of mass hysteria. The Islamic antisemitism and terrorism are stabilized in the inherently fragile, violent jihadi personality.

These traits are clearly found among Gaza’s Palestinians.  The boy’s experiences are harsh. In the family of as many as four wives and multiple children to one husband, the sons are ignored by the father and raised among the women for his first seven years, when he terror-bonds with his mother and accepts her worthlessness. It is an atmosphere of envy and rivalry among the wives as well as the children.  When the father does take control of his education, his mother has already exposed him to a painful betrayal, where he is raped and humiliated into submission by other men.  Despite the veneer of Islamic disgust about homosexuality, Arab poetry is replete with the joys of sodomy.

A boy’s friendships and education are strictly limited but they may come together as a group, faces covered, humiliation hidden, to take out their aggression on Mohammed’s sworn enemies, the Jews.  They work in unison when throwing rocks or incendiary missiles across Israel’s border.  Our social scientist, Lindner, appears oblivious of the ruinous upbringing experienced by the future jihadis, their eagerness for death and martyrdom, instead she attributes their violence to imagined humiliation by the Jews.

Neither is the daughter spared her own childhood nightmare.  In such a family unit, she experiences her own terror and distrust of her family when she undergoes Female Genital Mutilation.  The indignation of being restrained on a table while a stranger imposes on her privacy to inflict severe pain that negates her femaleness also brings her humiliation.  Raised in this household, forced into a loveless marriage to an older man and raped at will, the daughter, still in need of motherly nurturing, must be the mother to the numerous children.  Covered from head to toe, unseen by the world, restricted in her every move, can this be anything but humiliation?  From one generation to the next, the child terror-bonds with her mother, has no outlet for calm and affection, no education save memorization of the Koran, no expressions of art and music, no friends or courtships – and no credibility in a court of law if she seeks a way out.

The daughter has a role to play in the Islamic war against humanity.  She is responsible for creating more children for Allah’s army and martyrdom or to emulate the jihadi’s function.  The jihada is exemplified by Linda Sarsour, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, as well as by the exploits of female terrorists.  Yet we are to believe the Palestinian violence is caused by an outside source of humiliation. 

Ironically, Lindner inadvertently suggests that the Jews played no part in Palestinian humiliation, clarifying that humiliation is a hierarchal, ranking scale to maintaining social cohesion.  Israelis lives are filled with study and time spent in service to the country, and Israeli Arabs have the same opportunities.  They are encouraged to have a career, to marry and raise a family – the very activities not available to the Arab children of Gaza.  A successful neighbor can either inspire emulation or humiliation, the choice is given.

            The Palestinians have been primed – humiliated by their culture and dishonest circumstances. The invading Arab nations were bent on Israel’s destruction, and encouraged and caused the bulk of the Arabs to flee Israel, telling them they would return victorious.  Now, after all they endured by their people, from their people, and for their people, the piece de resistance, the final slap-in-the-face, the grand humiliation occurred when their armies lost and these individuals were abandoned, discarded and forbidden from ever returning to their lands of origin – Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan.  While they saw that the Jews who fled mistreatment from Arab countries were welcomed by their Israeli brethren, how demeaning to be told that they were not wanted, must never more identify with their history, their heritage, and other family members.  They were going to be used once again, as pawns.  With no distinguishing language, religion, or culture, and no lineage to this land back more than four generations, they had to create an identity out of whole cloth. This was indeed the ultimate cause for humiliation, and it was their own kith and kin who did the humiliating.

 

Tabitha Korol

https://tinyurl.com/y7e6z63d

Andrew Gillum Found Wasted in Hotel Room With Bags of Crystal Meth by Paramedics Responding to Drug Overdose….


Thankfully Florida elected Ron DeSantis as governor instead of this guy.

Florida authorities responding to a drug overdose located three men in a hotel room. One man was overdosed and needed paramedics.  There were bags of crystal meth found in the room and one of the men incapacitated was former Tallahassee Mayor, former Florida gubernatorial candidate, and current CNN contributor Andrew Gillum.

MIAMI – A police report about an apparent drug overdose in a Miami Beach hotel room overnight Thursday says that one of the three men present in the room was former Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum.

Three small plastic bags containing suspected crystal meth were found in the room, the police report said.

[…] The police said officers responded to a room at 1100 West Ave., which is the address of the Mondrian South Beach. Police found fire rescue personnel treating a man for a possible drug overdose.

Police found two other men in the room, including Gillum, described as an “involved other.”

One of the men told police that when he arrived at the hotel shortly after 11 p.m. Thursday, Gillum and the person having the medical issue were “inside the room under the influence of an unknown substance.”

The police report said the man said that on arriving he “observed Mr. Gillum inside the bathroom vomiting…. Officers then attempted to speak to Mr. Gillum. Mr. Gillum was unable to communicate with officers due to his inebriated state.”

Gillum confirmed his presence in a statement Friday.

“I was in Miami last night for a wedding celebration when first responders were called to assist one of my friends. While I had too much to drink, I want to be clear that I have never used methamphetamines. I apologize to the people of Florida for the distraction this has caused our movement,” Gillum said. (more)

Jessica Lipscomb

@jessicalipscomb

David Smiley

@NewsbySmiley

Gillum statement: “I was in Miami last night for a wedding celebration when first responders were called to assist one of my friends. While I had too much to drink, I want to be clear that I have never used methamphetamines.”

1,069 people are talking about this

Secretary of State Pompeo Meets With UN Secretary General Guterres


Any attempt by the ICC to enforce a warrant against any U.S. citizens must be fought by all means necessary

Joseph A. Klein, CFP United Nations Columnist imageRe Posted from The Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesMarch 7, 2020

Secretary of State Pompeo Meets With UN Secretary General GuterresSecretary of State Michael R. Pompeo met on March 6th with United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres at UN headquarters in New York. The offices of the spokespersons for both the State Department and the Secretary General issued their own readouts of the meeting. One would think from reading them that the readouts were reporting on two different meetings.

The UN readout portrayed the meeting as a kumbaya moment. “The Secretary-General expressed appreciation for the continued engagement of the United States in the United Nation,” the UN statement said. It ticked off as topics of discussion “a range of situations around the world, including Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, the Sahel and the questions related to the implementation of the host country agreement.” The reference to the host country agreement implementation may have alluded to a dispute over the denial or delay of visas issued by the U.S. to UN diplomats from certain countries, principally Russia and Iran, seeking to attend UN meetings in New York. However, the statement completely sidestepped the substance of the issue. Nothing was even hinted regarding any other differences between the United States and the United Nations.

The State Department readout did not hold back, however. Half of the readout was devoted to the UN’s highly biased pro-Palestinian decision to release its blacklist of companies doing business with Israeli firms operating in disputed areas of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which includes several U.S. companies. It said that Secretary Pompeo “reiterated his outrage at the decision by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet to publish a database of companies operating in Israeli-controlled territories.” The U.S. statement added that Secretary Pompeo “made clear that the United States will continue to engage UN officials and member states on this matter, will not tolerate the reckless mistreatment of U.S. companies, and will respond to actions harmful to our business community.”

The true agenda of the BDS, with which the UN is complicit, is the total destruction of the Jewish State of Israel and its full takeover by Palestinian militants

As usual, the UN Secretary General tried to paper over significant objections to the UN’s moral failures with diplomatic niceties. Secretary Pompeo, representing the UN’s biggest financial contributor by far, was not willing to be a part of such play-acting. What Bachelet did, with the Secretary General’s evident concurrence, blatantly undermines real human rights. The UN blacklist promotes the agenda of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which discriminatorily singles out the Jewish State for economic punishment because of its “settlements” activities. Turkey, which illegally occupied Northern Cyprus in 1974, has since sent thousands of Turkish settlers and occupation troops to Northern Cyprus, without a whimper of objection by UN officials. Ironically, the livelihoods of Palestinians and their families will be jeopardized if Palestinians working for the affected businesses lose their jobs as a result of the boycott encouraged by the UN’s blacklist.

The true agenda of the BDS, with which the UN is complicit, is the total destruction of the Jewish State of Israel and its full takeover by Palestinian militants. “No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian, will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine,” said Omar Barghouti, BDS’s co-founder. The truth is that the BDS movement and its offshoot at the United Nations are a throwback to the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.

Thus, the Trump administration correctly objects to the use of the American taxpayer-funded UN bureaucracy to promulgate a blacklist intended to intimidate U.S. businesses and others into complying with the BDS boycott. Secretary General Guterres should heed the message that Secretary Pompeo delivered to him during their face-to-face meeting on Friday or face the financial consequences from further cuts in U.S. contributions to the UN’s bloated budget.

We do not know for sure what was said during the meeting regarding implementation of the Agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations – the so-called host country agreement.  However, Secretary General Guterres has expressed concerns in the past over failures or delays by the Trump administration in issuing visas to foreign government officials seeking entry to the United States to attend UN meetings as well as the imposition of travel restrictions.

Hopefully, Secretary of State Pompeo made it clear to Secretary General Guterres that the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and her investigatory staff will not be welcome to the United States as long as they pursue their vendetta against American officials, soldiers, and intelligence agents for perfectly lawful actions taken against terrorists in Afghanistan.

A panel of judges from the ICC’s Appeals Chamber has just reversed an earlier ruling by an ICC panel of judges, which had blocked a probe into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan. The Appeals Chamber judges decided unanimously on Thursday to allow the ICC prosecutor to investigate possible crimes on Afghan territory since May 2003 and other alleged crimes linked to the situation there since July 2002. The United States is not a party to the ICC Rome Statute and, moreover, has its own robust system of justice that the ICC has no valid jurisdiction to supplant or override.

The U.S. has already revoked ICC Prosecutor Bensouda’s entry visa to the United States

The ICC prosecutor called the decision “an important day for the cause of justice in the situation of Afghanistan, for the Court, and for international criminal justice more broadly.” To the contrary, the decision was, in Secretary Pompeo’s words, a “breathtaking action by an unaccountable political institution, masquerading as a legal body.” He added, “It is all the more reckless for this ruling to come just days after the United States signed a historic peace deal on Afghanistan, which is the best chance for peace in a generation. We’re going to take all the appropriate actions to ensure that American citizens are not hauled before this political body to settle political vendettas.”

The Trump administration can start by following through on Secretary Pompeo’s warning last year that the U.S. would deny or revoke visas for International Criminal Court staff. The U.S. has already revoked ICC Prosecutor Bensouda’s entry visa to the United States. She should continue to be barred entry, along with her investigators. They also must be barred from interviewing any past or present U.S. officials, soldiers or other government personnel anywhere in the world. Any attempt by the ICC to enforce a warrant against any U.S. citizens must be fought by all means necessary.

Chris Matthews Quits MSNBC Effective Immediately – Video…


At the beginning of his broadcast show tonight Chris Matthews announced he is retiring from NBC effective immediately. Tonight was the final broadcast of Hardball With Chris Matthews…

(AP) Veteran MSNBC host Chris Matthews said he’s retiring from his show “Hardball,” citing his inappropriate comments about women.

Matthews opened his program with the announcement he was ending his run on the political hour that he started in 1997.

He said compliments on a woman’s appearance that some men, himself included, thought were OK “were never OK.”

He remained proud of the work he ’s done on the show, he said.

In a first-person story for GQ published Feb. 28, freelance journalist Laura Bassett said Matthews behaved inappropriately toward her when she was guest on his show.

“In 2016, right before I had to go on his show and talk about sexual-assault allegations against Donald Trump, Matthews looked over at me in the makeup chair next to him and said, ‘Why haven’t I fallen in love with you yet?’ When I laughed nervously and said nothing, he followed up to the makeup artist. ‘Keep putting makeup on her, I’ll fall in love with her,’” Bassett wrote. “Another time, he stood between me and the mirror and complimented the red dress I was wearing for the segment. ‘You going out tonight?’ he asked.”

Bassett said she written about the encounter in a 2017 essay but didn’t name Matthews because she was afraid of network retaliation, adding, “I’m not anymore.” (link)

Video below:

Tom Elliott@tomselliott

Chris Matthews announces — on a Monday — he’s retiring and that today’s “Hardball” will be the last.

“After my conversation with NBC, I decided tonight will be my last Hardball. I’ll tell you why. The younger generations are ready to take the reigns.”

Embedded video

289 people are talking about this

Keynote Address: The Cost of America’s Cultural Revolution by Heather Mac Donald


Heather Mac Donald delivers the keynote address at the launch of the National Association of Scholars’ report, Social Justice Education in America.

Brad Pitt and Harrison Ford use their celebrity platform to trash President Trump — and thus half of their movie audience!


152K subscribers

When Brad Pitt and Harrison Ford use their celebrity platform to trash President Trump — and thus half of their movie audience — they spit in the face of the people gave them that platform. But times have changed since Jimmy Stewart graced us with his all-American characters and personal life to match, and it just doesn’t matter any more. So why do these hypocrites do it? Three celebrity regular guys will join you on a 3-night Caribbean cruise in May, if you sign up in time. Come with Bill, Scott and Steve, for a great time, live shows, lots of Q&A, casual conversation and laughter over great food and drinks. http://bit.ly/StratoCruise2020 Become a Member and help to produce these messages and spread them around the world. https://BillWhittle.com/register/

Ex Muslim Exposes The Reality of Islam In The West | Yasmine Mohammed | SPIRITUALITY | Rubin Report


1.14M subscribers
Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Yasmine Mohammed (Author and Activist) about how she became an ex Muslim and the untold reality of Islam in the West. Yasmine grew up in a fundamentalist Muslim home in Canada. Despite living in a western country her childhood more closely resembled living under Sharia law in Saudi Arabia. She was forced to wear a hijab starting at age 9 and was later put into an arranged marriage. She left her husband and tried to regain control over her life. Yasmine had her awakening when she saw Sam Harris’s famous appearance with Ben Affleck on Real Time With Bill Maher. It was then that she knew she had a duty to tell the world about her experiences growing up Muslim in Canada. She also discusses her book “UNVEILED: How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam”. Yasmine shares stories about her young students of the Zoomer generation and how she sees them as potentially being the end of “woke culture”. She also reveals why she thinks people in the West are being sold a lie by fetishizing the hijab through burkinis in Sports Illustrated, and Nike swoosh hijabs. The lie being that these things empower women, when in fact they oppress them. Yasmine also shares her surprise at how afraid a lot of westerners are to speak up, despite having their speech protected. Watch Dave Rubin’s previous interview with Yasmine Mohammed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAqEv…