► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Leftist-Islamic Alliance’ Category

Mars Attacks: Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries

by Mars ( 376 Comments › )
Filed under Abortion, Academia, Bigotry, Blogmocracy, Censorship, Communism, Corruption, Democratic Party, Education, Environmentalism, Fascism, Free Speech, Global Warming Hoax, government, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Hipsters, History, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Multiculturalism, Nazism, Patriotism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Racism, Socialism, Tranzis at June 26th, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries

By: Human Events
5/31/2005 03:00 AM

HUMAN EVENTS asked a panel of 15 conservative scholars and public policy leaders to help us compile a list of the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Each panelist nominated a number of titles and then voted on a ballot including all books nominated. A title received a score of 10 points for being listed No. 1 by one of our panelists, 9 points for being listed No. 2, etc. Appropriately, The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, earned the highest aggregate score and the No. 1 listing.

1. The Communist Manifesto

Authors: Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels
Publication date: 1848
Score: 74
Summary: Marx and Engels, born in Germany in 1818 and 1820, respectively, were the intellectual godfathers of communism. Engels was the original limousine leftist: A wealthy textile heir, he financed Marx for much of his life. In 1848, the two co-authored The Communist Manifesto as a platform for a group they belonged to called the Communist League. The Manifesto envisions history as a class struggle between oppressed workers and oppressive owners, calling for a workers’ revolution so property, family and nation-states can be abolished and a proletarian Utopia established. The Evil Empire of the Soviet Union put the Manifesto into practice.

2. Mein Kampf

Author: Adolf Hitler
Publication date: 1925-26
Score: 41
Summary: Mein Kampf (My Struggle) was initially published in two parts in 1925 and 1926 after Hitler was imprisoned for leading Nazi Brown Shirts in the so-called “Beer Hall Putsch” that tried to overthrow the Bavarian government. Here Hitler explained his racist, anti-Semitic vision for Germany, laying out a Nazi program pointing directly to World War II and the Holocaust. He envisioned the mass murder of Jews, and a war against France to precede a war against Russia to carve out “lebensraum” (“living room”) for Germans in Eastern Europe. The book was originally ignored. But not after Hitler rose to power. According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, there were 10 million copies in circulation by 1945.

3. Quotations from Chairman Mao

Author: Mao Zedong
Publication date: 1966
Score: 38
Summary: Mao, who died in 1976, was the leader of the Red Army in the fight for control of China against the anti-Communist forces of Chiang Kai-shek before, during and after World War II. Victorious, in 1949, he founded the People’s Republic of China, enslaving the world’s most populous nation in communism. In 1966, he published Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong, otherwise known as The Little Red Book, as a tool in the “Cultural Revolution” he launched to push the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese society back in his ideological direction. Aided by compulsory distribution in China, billions were printed. Western leftists were enamored with its Marxist anti-Americanism. “It is the task of the people of the whole world to put an end to the aggression and oppression perpetrated by imperialism, and chiefly by U.S. imperialism,” wrote Mao.

4. The Kinsey Report

Author: Alfred Kinsey
Publication date: 1948
Score: 37
Summary: Alfred Kinsey was a zoologist at Indiana University who, in 1948, published a study called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, commonly known as The Kinsey Report. Five years later, he published Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. The reports were designed to give a scientific gloss to the normalization of promiscuity and deviancy. “Kinsey’s initial report, released in 1948 . . . stunned the nation by saying that American men were so sexually wild that 95% of them could be accused of some kind of sexual offense under 1940s laws,” the Washington Times reported last year when a movie on Kinsey was released. “The report included reports of sexual activity by boys–even babies–and said that 37% of adult males had had at least one homosexual experience. . . . The 1953 book also included reports of sexual activity involving girls younger than age 4, and suggested that sex between adults and children could be beneficial.”

5. Democracy and Education

Author: John Dewey
Publication date: 1916
Score: 36
Summary: John Dewey, who lived from 1859 until 1952, was a “progressive” philosopher and leading advocate for secular humanism in American life, who taught at the University of Chicago and at Columbia. He signed the Humanist Manifesto and rejected traditional religion and moral absolutes. In Democracy and Education, in pompous and opaque prose, he disparaged schooling that focused on traditional character development and endowing children with hard knowledge, and encouraged the teaching of thinking “skills” instead. His views had great influence on the direction of American education–particularly in public schools–and helped nurture the Clinton generation.

6. Das Kapital

Author: Karl Marx
Publication date: 1867-1894
Score: 31
Summary: Marx died after publishing a first volume of this massive book, after which his benefactor Engels edited and published two additional volumes that Marx had drafted. Das Kapital forces the round peg of capitalism into the square hole of Marx’s materialistic theory of history, portraying capitalism as an ugly phase in the development of human society in which capitalists inevitably and amorally exploit labor by paying the cheapest possible wages to earn the greatest possible profits. Marx theorized that the inevitable eventual outcome would be global proletarian revolution. He could not have predicted 21st Century America: a free, affluent society based on capitalism and representative government that people the world over envy and seek to emulate.

7. The Feminine Mystique

Author: Betty Friedan
Publication date: 1963
Score: 30
Summary: In The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, born in 1921, disparaged traditional stay-at-home motherhood as life in “a comfortable concentration camp”–a role that degraded women and denied them true fulfillment in life. She later became founding president of the National Organization for Women. Her original vocation, tellingly, was not stay-at-home motherhood but left-wing journalism. As David Horowitz wrote in a review for Salon.com of Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique by Daniel Horowitz (no relation to David): The author documents that “Friedan was from her college days, and until her mid-30s, a Stalinist Marxist, the political intimate of the leaders of America’s Cold War fifth column and for a time even the lover of a young Communist physicist working on atomic bomb projects in Berkeley’s radiation lab with J. Robert Oppenheimer.”

8. The Course of Positive Philosophy

Author: Auguste Comte
Publication date: 1830-1842
Score: 28
Summary: Comte, the product of a royalist Catholic family that survived the French Revolution, turned his back on his political and cultural heritage, announcing as a teenager, “I have naturally ceased to believe in God.” Later, in the six volumes of The Course of Positive Philosophy, he coined the term “sociology.” He did so while theorizing that the human mind had developed beyond “theology” (a belief that there is a God who governs the universe), through “metaphysics” (in this case defined as the French revolutionaries’ reliance on abstract assertions of “rights” without a God), to “positivism,” in which man alone, through scientific observation, could determine the way things ought to be.

9. Beyond Good and Evil

Author: Freidrich Nietzsche
Publication date: 1886
Score: 28
Summary: An oft-scribbled bit of college-campus graffiti says: “‘God is dead’–Nietzsche” followed by “‘Nietzsche is dead’–God.” Nietzsche’s profession that “God is dead” appeared in his 1882 book, The Gay Science, but under-girded the basic theme of Beyond Good and Evil, which was published four years later. Here Nietzsche argued that men are driven by an amoral “Will to Power,” and that superior men will sweep aside religiously inspired moral rules, which he deemed as artificial as any other moral rules, to craft whatever rules would help them dominate the world around them. “Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of the strange and weaker, suppression, severity, imposition of one’s own forms, incorporation and, at the least and mildest, exploitation,” he wrote. The Nazis loved Nietzsche.

10. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

Author: John Maynard Keynes
Publication date: 1936
Score: 23
Summary: Keynes was a member of the British elite–educated at Eton and Cambridge–who as a liberal Cambridge economics professor wrote General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in the midst of the Great Depression. The book is a recipe for ever-expanding government. When the business cycle threatens a contraction of industry, and thus of jobs, he argued, the government should run up deficits, borrowing and spending money to spur economic activity. FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion dollar debt.

Honorable Mention

These books won votes from two or more judges:

The Population Bomb
by Paul Ehrlich
Score: 22

What Is To Be Done
by V.I. Lenin
Score: 20

Authoritarian Personality
by Theodor Adorno
Score: 19

On Liberty
by John Stuart Mill
Score: 18

Beyond Freedom and Dignity
by B.F. Skinner
Score: 18

Reflections on Violence
by Georges Sorel
Score: 18

The Promise of American Life
by Herbert Croly
Score: 17

The Origin of Species
by Charles Darwin
Score: 17

Madness and Civilization
by Michel Foucault
Score: 12

Soviet Communism: A New Civilization
by Sidney and Beatrice Webb
Score: 12

Coming of Age in Samoa
by Margaret Mead
Score: 11

Unsafe at Any Speed
by Ralph Nader
Score: 11

Second Sex
by Simone de Beauvoir
Score: 10

Prison Notebooks
by Antonio Gramsci
Score: 10

Silent Spring
by Rachel Carson
Score: 9

Wretched of the Earth
by Frantz Fanon
Score: 9

Introduction to Psychoanalysis
by Sigmund Freud
Score: 9

The Greening of America
by Charles Reich
Score: 9

The Limits to Growth
by Club of Rome
Score: 4

Descent of Man
by Charles Darwin
Score: 2

The Judges

These 15 scholars and public policy leaders served as judges in selecting the Ten Most Harmful Books.

Arnold Beichman
Research Fellow
Hoover Institution

Prof. Brad Birzer
Hillsdale College

Harry Crocker
Vice President & Executive Editor
Regnery Publishing, Inc.

Prof. Marshall DeRosa
Florida Atlantic University

Dr. Don Devine
Second Vice Chairman
American Conservative Union

Prof. Robert George
Princeton University

Prof. Paul Gottfried
Elizabethtown College

Prof. William Anthony Hay
Mississippi State University

Herb London
President
Hudson Institute

Prof. Mark Malvasi
Randolph-Macon College

Douglas Minson
Associate Rector
The Witherspoon Fellowships

Prof. Mark Molesky
Seton Hall University

Prof. Stephen Presser
Northwestern University

Phyllis Schlafly
President
Eagle Forum

Fred Smith
President
Competitive Enterprise Institute

http://www.humanevents.com/2005/05/31/ten-most-harmful-books-of-the-19th-and-20th-centuries/

Hipster Russell Brand calls Fox News terrorists and defends ISIS

by Rodan ( 174 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Entertainment, Fascism, Hipsters, Iran, Iraq, Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Progressives, Syria at June 26th, 2014 - 7:00 am

The Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham has become a revolutionary symbol to many in the Hipster movement. This Islamic Imperialist organization is viewed by some Hipsters as a revolutionary organization fighting against “Global Capitalist Oppression.” A manifestation of the mainstreaming of ISIS with the Avant-garde crowd is Hipster comedian Russell Brand.

The British comedian who is popular with the Hipster set defends ISIS and blames their rise on the US. Russell Brand then calls Fox News a terrorist organization. He launches a very vile attack on Justice Jeanine Pirro with sexual taunts.

Do not laugh at Russell Brand’s defense of ISIS and anti-Fox rant. He is a player in the popular culture and his opinion helps form the opinions of many especially in the Hipster set. Brand is a dangerous man who is participating in the softening of the image of ISIS.

Here is Russel Brand’s tour poster.

Brand

Brand views himself as a leader of some cultural movement. I would not be shock to see Brand in a few months wear ISIS t-shirts to promote them as a cool and hip organization. Russell Brand is the face of evil and not someone to take likely.

ISIS is now Hip

by Rodan ( 127 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Hipsters, Iraq, Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Syria at June 23rd, 2014 - 1:00 pm

ISISTshirt

For decades Arab/Islamic groups have been considered cool with the Hipster set. In the 70′s and 80′s the PLO was considered hip. In the 90′s and 2000′s al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah were considered hip and cool. Now the coalition group of al-Qaeda splinters, ex-Saddam Baathists and Chechens known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham are now the cool kids on the block.

Seeking to capitalize on the coolness of ISIS, T-Shirts and hoodies promoting the group and featuring their fighters are now being sold. The organization’s success has made them into cultural icons with Hipsters.

Its social media savvy has made Isis a “terror brand” to rival al-Qaida, with supporters worldwide following the brutal exploits of the Islamist group through its Twitter updates or even downloading the group’s own app.

Now supporters can show their loyalty to the group by sporting a T-shirt or hoodie emblazoned with the group’s black and white jihadist logo, after the items went on sale on Facebook.

[....]

Kaos Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham (Isis) sells T-shirts under the outdoor wear/sporting goods section with the name Isis alongside pictures of Kalashnikov rifles and a globe, presumably signifying the group’s plans for world domination.

The name ISIS alone is cathcy as it is the same name of an Egyptian goddess. On social media, ISIS has gain many followers especially among Hipsters who view the group as revolutionary and cool. The Hipsters and their various incarnations throughout time always love totalitarian movements and ISIS extreme draconian social stances against women and gays does not faze the Hipsters. For them its about the image of ISIS as a revolutionary group taking on the established order that makes this group now Hip!

I would not be shocked if in the coming months some Hispsters take the shahada and join ISIS. They will make videos of themselves fighting for ISIS to impress their fellow Hispsters and appear as cool. There will probably be musicals about ISIS in the near future.

ISISleader

This guy above will replace Che on Hispter T-shirts.

Mars Attacks: Psychology says it’s okay if you are evil, it’s not actually your fault.

by Mars ( 108 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Blogmocracy, Communism, Corruption, Crime, Democratic Party, DOJ, Fascism, Free Speech, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Hipsters, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Racism, Second Amendment, Socialism, Tranzis at June 19th, 2014 - 8:00 am

Here is another case of Psych “experts” trying to excuse behavior because “you’re just programmed that way”. Hey, but there’s good news. According to this self-serving article, the more you read articles like this, the less you believe in prison and capital punishment. So, see there is a silver lining.

Free will is just a myth according to these people you are just a preprogrammed set of impulses so it’s wrong (and probably racist) to insist that these people be locked away or executed where they can’t continue to harm those around them.

Hey, maybe this is the basis behind Obama’s catch and release terrorist program.

Enjoy this exercise in absurdity in it’s entirety.

Minimizing belief in free will may lessen support for criminal punishment

Exposure to information that diminishes free will, including brain-based accounts of behavior, seems to decrease people’s support for retributive punishment, according to research published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

People who learned about neuroscientific research, either by reading a magazine article or through undergraduate coursework, proposed less severe punishment for a hypothetical criminal than did their peers. The findings suggest that they did so because they saw the criminal as less blameworthy.

“There is no academic consensus on free will, but we already do see discussions of brain processes and responsibility trickling through the justice system and other social institutions — for better or worse,” says psychological scientist and study author Azim Shariff of the University of Oregon.

While research suggests that most people believe in free will, Shariff and colleagues wondered whether increasing exposure to information about the brain, which suggests a more mechanistic account of human behavior, might have consequences for how we reason about morality and make moral attributions.

They hypothesized that exposing people to information that diminishes belief in free will — neuroscientific or otherwise — would, in turn, diminish perceptions of moral responsibility; ultimately, this shift in belief would influence how people think about crime and punishment.

So, for example, if people come to believe that the brain drives behavior, they may be less likely to hold others morally responsible for criminal actions, eliminating the need to punish so that they receive their “just deserts.”

In an initial experiment, Shariff and colleagues had college students read a passage and then read a fictional scenario about a man who beat another man to death. Some of the students read a passage that rejected free will and advocated a mechanistic view of behavior, while others read a passage unrelated to free will.

Those students who read the passage rejecting free will chose significantly shorter prison sentences, about 5 years, than did those who read the neutral passage, about 10 years.

The effect also emerged when the manipulation was more subtle: Students who read an article about neuroscience findings that only implied mechanistic explanations for human behavior chose shorter prison sentences than did their peers who read about nuclear power or natural headache remedies.

Not only that, they also placed less blame on the transgressor. Further analyses revealed that decreased blameworthiness actually accounted for the relationship between diminished belief in free will and lighter sentences.

Interestingly, students who freely enrolled and participated in an undergraduate course in cognitive neuroscience also showed the effect. Students who took a neuroscience course chose a lighter prison sentence at the end of the semester than they had at the beginning of the semester; this decrease in recommended sentence was associated with self-reported increases in knowledge about the brain over the course of the semester.

Students enrolled in a geography course, on the other hand, showed no change in their sentencing recommendations over time.

“These results show that our students are not only absorbing some of what we’re teaching them, but also seeing implications of that content for their attitudes about things as fundamental as morality and responsibility,” says Shariff. “It underscores the consequences that science education — and perhaps psychological science education, in particular — can have on our students and, ultimately, the broader public.”

Shariff and colleagues believe that their findings could have broad implications, especially in the domains of criminal justice and law.

###

This project was supported in part by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (Award 07-89249-000-HCD), by the Regents of the University of California, and by the John Templeton Foundation.

In addition to Shariff, study co-authors include Joshua D. Greene of Harvard University; Johan C. Karremans of Radboud University Nijmegen; Jamie B. Luguri of Yale University; Cory J. Clark of the University of California, Irvine; Jonathan W. Schooler of the University of California, Santa Barbara; Roy F. Baumeister of Florida State University; and Kathleen D. Vohs of the University of Minnesota.

All materials have been made publicly available via Open Science Framework and can be accessed at osf.io/dy3pm. The complete Open Practices Disclosure for this article can be found at http://pss.sagepub.com/content/by/supplementaldata.

This article has received the badge for Open Materials. More information about the Open Practices badges can be found at https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki/view/ and http://pss.sagepub.com/content/25/1/3.full.

For more information about this study, please contact: Azim Shariff at shariff@uoregon.edu.

The article abstract is available online: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/09/0956797614534693.abstract

A Bitter Aftertaste by Thomas Sowell From National Review

by Mars ( 130 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Anti-Jihad, Barack Obama, Blogmocracy, Conservatism, Democratic Party, George W. Bush, Guest Post, History, Iraq, Islam, Islamic Invasion, Islamic Supremacism, Islamic Terrorism, Islamists, Jihad, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Middle East, Military, Muslim Brotherhood, Patriotism, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party, September 11, Terrorism, Tranzis at June 18th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Putting this up as per request. Thomas Sowell skewers nation building and compassionate warfare.
Mars.

The news from Iraq that Islamic terrorists have now taken over cities that American troops liberated during the Iraq war must have left an especially bitter aftertaste to Americans who lost a loved one who died taking one of those cities, or to a survivor who came back without an arm or leg, or with other traumas to body or mind.

Surely we need to learn something from a tragedy of this magnitude.

Some say that we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. Others say we should never have pulled our troops out when we did, leaving behind a weak and irresponsible government in charge.

At a minimum, Iraq should put an end to the notion of “nation-building,” especially nation-building on the cheap, and to the glib and heady talk of “national greatness” interventionists who were prepared to put other people’s lives on the line from the safety of their editorial offices.

Those who are ready to blame President George W. Bush for everything bad that has happened since he left office should at least acknowledge that he was a patriotic American president who did what he did for the good of the country — an assumption that we can no longer safely make about the current occupant of the White House.

If President Bush’s gamble that we could create a thriving democracy in the Middle East — one of the least likely places for a democracy to thrive — had paid off, it could have been the beginning of a world-changing benefit to this generation and to generations yet unborn. A thriving free society in the Muslim world, and the values and example that such a society could represent, might undermine the whole hate-filled world terrorist movement that is seeking to turn back civilization to a darker world of centuries past.

But creating such a society, if it is possible at all, cannot be done on the cheap, with politicians constantly calling for us to announce to the world — including our enemies — when we are going to leave. The very idea is silly, but everything silly is not funny.

We haven’t yet announced when we are going to pull our troops out of Germany or Japan, and World War II was over more than 60 years ago. Turning those militaristic countries around was one of the great achievements in human history. Their neighboring countries have been able to enjoy a peace and security that they had not known for generations.

Perhaps what was achieved in Germany and Japan made it seem that we might achieve something similar in Iraq. But “the greatest generation” that had fought and survived the horrors of war around the world was under no illusion that trying to turn our defeated enemies around would be easy, quick, and cheap. Creating democracy in Germany and Japan was a goal, but not a fetish. Creating a stable and viable government amid the ruins and rubble of war was the first priority and a major responsibility. You cannot create instant democracy like you are making instant coffee.

There are prerequisites for a free society, and the foundations of democracy cannot be built on chaotic conditions with widespread uncertainty and fear. To hold elections for the sake of holding elections is to abdicate responsibility for the sake of appearances. The biggest danger is that you will create a government that will work at cross-purposes to everything you are trying to achieve — a government you cannot rein in, much less repudiate, without destroying your own credibility as representatives of democracy. That has happened in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

By contrast, in both Germany and Japan, power was turned over to elected officials at such times and in such degree as conditions seemed to indicate. Eventually, both countries resumed their roles as sovereign nations. But we didn’t publish a timetable.

Today, with terrorists threatening to at least fragment Iraq, if not take it over, it is a sobering thought that Barack Obama and his key advisers have a track record of having been wrong about Iraq and other foreign-policy issues for years, going back before they took office — and no track record of learning from their mistakes.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2014 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Hating Jews in Sweden

by Speranza ( 114 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Bigotry, Christianity, Gaza, Hate Speech, History, Holocaust, IDF, Islam, Islamic Invasion, Israel, Judaism, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Multiculturalism, Palestinians, Religion, Sweden, World War II at June 3rd, 2014 - 9:00 am

I sure hope that the Swedes are enjoying the graciousness of their new Muslim residents. Raoul Wallenberg certainly would be ashamed about the anti-Semitism affecting his country. All I can say is that the Swedish women should expect (if neighboring Norway is an indication) that rape will skyrocket. Could it be that they are so anti-Semitic over there that they will not recognize that Jews bring nothing but good to any nation that is privileged enough to have them?

by Annika Hemroth-Rothstein

The Jews are a base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth. The Jews are full of the devil’s feces…which they wallow in like swine, their synagogue is an incorrigible whore and an evil slut.

Martin Luther, “On the Jews and Their Lies,” 1543

I know what you are.

He smiled at me, the boy in the brown cargo pants, so sweetly that I was sure I had misheard him. But no. He knew what I was, even before I did, and he wanted me to know. The year was 1994, I was in middle school in a small Swedish town, and my country was experiencing yet another surge in neo-Nazi activity. Maybe it was the economic crisis, maybe it was the weather. Or maybe it was the same forces that had conspired four decades ago to bring my mother to the front of her middle-school class so that her profile could be drawn next to the neighbor boy’s—a lesson for her peers in how to tell a Jew from an Aryan.

“The Swedes are a practical people,” my mother said of the incident. “It didn’t feel like they were hateful. They just…wanted to know what we look like, you know, what features set us apart.”

Why, though? Why did they want to know?

The answer to that question begins with Aaron Isaac, a seal engraver and haberdasher from Germany who arrived in Sweden in 1774 and became the first Jew to settle legally in the country without having to convert to Lutheranism. That was due to King Gustav III, who found the Jews to be an intelligent, industrious people and who thought that allowing entry to a few Jewish tradesmen would help a crumbling Swedish economy. The Swedish people were not as welcoming. Isaac wrote in his memoir that he lived in fear of attack for being a Christ-killer and noted that the forced baptism of Jews was common practice. What’s more, he and his co-religionists were subjected to the judereglemente, a law allowing Jews to settle in three selected Swedish cities as long as they did not marry a non-Jew, lure a Lutheran into the Jewish faith, or work outside the guild system.

By the early 1800s, there were still fewer than 1,000 Jews living in Sweden. The country was suffering from a severe recession and, in a tragic reversal of the king’s plans for economic recovery, the meager Jewish minority absorbed the blame. Swedes accused Jews of coming to the big cities with their mythical fortunes and driving up prices for everyone else.  [.......]

Tomorrow two young Jew-boys will join our class. Please try to be nice to them and do your best to disregard the fact that their forefathers crucified our savior.

-Par Wastberg, a recollection of a teacher’s words on the first day of school in Stockholm, 1888

The Jewish population remained around 3,000 until the late 1800s, when pogroms in Eastern Europe sent waves of immigrants to Sweden. While the earlier settlers had been intellectuals and academics, chosen for specific tasks by the king, the new Jewish immigrants were frequently poor, uneducated, and desperate. A divide opened up within the Jewish population between the old and the new, the self-selected and the fleeing. Many of the new immigrants got by as peddlers. They lived in small shtetls in the south of Sweden, where most spoke only Yiddish. These new arrivals and their alien culture once again unnerved the Swedish majority. Whereas the earlier immigrants had been accused of ruining the country with their wealth, the Eastern European Jews were said to be doing the same through their poverty and unwillingness to assimilate. In 1886, conservative parliamentarian P.E. Lithander called for an alien act in order to protect the Swedish Aryan blood from being dirtied by people with “lesser genetic material.” He succeeded in 1907, when an alien act was established. Many of the earlier Jewish settlers lobbied against further Jewish immigration as well, fearing that persecution would increase as the unassimilated Jewish population grew.

During this period, Swedish foreign policy also took a dangerous turn. Sweden began to distance itself from France, a former ally, and move toward Germany, an emerging superpower. Most Swedes saw Germany as a haven for humanism, academics, and the arts.  It was also, critically, the home of Lutheranism. By strengthening German ties, Swedes hoped to establish a potential sanctuary should turmoil strike an increasingly troubled Europe.

When turmoil came, in the form of World War I, Swedish public opinion lined up squarely behind the Germans. In fact, Swedish history textbooks written at the end of the war cited the Dolchstoßlegende (“stab-in-the-back” myth) as the reason for Germany’s loss. This reading of events, in which German humiliation was blamed largely on unpatriotic Jews, fit naturally into the Swedish storyline about its own troublesome Jewish population. If the Jews of Germany had fooled everyone by pretending to integrate only to stab their host country in the back, might not the Jews of Sweden do the same?

Political shifts were remaking the country in problematic ways. In the years following the Great War, the workers’ movement celebrated many victories in Europe, and Sweden was no exception. The Social Democratic Party, as well as the more radical Marxists, attracted both the masses and the intellectual elite. In 1921, when universal voting rights were established, along with the eight-hour workday, the country welcomed the dawn of this new progressive socialism. With these ideological changes, the Jewish minority came under fresh attack. [........] Between the well-established Lutherans and the rising secular socialists, the Jewish population of Sweden now had enemies on two flanks.

The growing anti-Semitic menace outside Sweden was also now reaching deep into the country. At the international conference in Évian in 1938, Swedish delegate Gosta Engzell expressed concern about the threat of hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Hitler’s Germany that were putting pressure on the Swedish state. Sweden, along with Switzerland—two countries that had long prided themselves on their neutrality—asked the German government to mark the passport of every Jewish citizen so that each could be easily spotted and denied entry. The German government was happy to comply, and on October 5, 1938, all German Jewish passports became invalid. When Jews applied for new passports, each one was marked with a red J on the first page.

[.......]
At the outbreak of World War II, Sweden declared neutrality. But practicality trumped neutrality when it came to the country’s relationship with Germany, and between 1939 and 1943, German–Swedish trade thrived. Sweden was Nazi Germany’s main supplier of iron ore, ball bearings, and timber. From the Germans, Sweden imported coal, chemical products, and essential ordnance for the Swedish army. Swedish relations with the Nazi regime, however, went far beyond trade. The Swedish railway system was used to transport not only goods but also German soldiers, on leave and in action. From 1940 to 1943 these conveyances, commonly known as “German trains,” transported 2.1 million soldiers and more than 100,000 truckloads of war materiel for the German government.

In 1942, a ship containing in excess of 700 Norwegian Jews was headed for concentration camps but capsized off the Swedish coast. The event shook the country and stirred fresh debate. Paul Levine, director of the Holocaust and Genocide Studies program at Uppsala University, notes that this overwhelming evidence of the Holocaust’s claiming of Nordic lives compelled Swedes to change their attitude. Before this point, Swedish policy had been influenced by a mix of anti-Semitism and indifference. The Swedish borders, having been closed to Jewish refugees, opened; and in 1943, Sweden released official statements declaring that the country was now willing to take in all Norwegian and Danish Jews.

The “German trains” came to a halt after the battle at Stalingrad in 1943, at which point it became evident that the tide was turning. Swedish military radio, which had been leased for use by the Germans, was now given over to the Allied forces. Additionally, the Swedish military provided the Allies with all information they had gathered about Nazi schemes. Sweden was now, once again, playing for the winning team. It is often said that Sweden’s neutrality kept it intact during the war, but in reality, it was the country’s willingness to circumvent that neutrality that spared it the fate of its European neighbors.

Those of us who are part of my generation were very young when we saw the pictures of the Jewish children in Hitler’s concentration camps, and we felt pained when we realized the atrocities being done against them. Now we feel the same pain, seeing the Palestinian children of Lebanon that are being persecuted in the exact same way. But this time it is Israel who is the persecutor.

—Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, 1982

Sweden had come through the war relatively unscathed and even heroic in its own eyes. Stories abounded of the Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg’s valiant rescue of thousands of Jews and Count Folke Bernadotte’s “white buses” full of liberated concentration-camp victims. For decades after the war, the country thrived economically and the Swedish left carried out various social reforms, creating the welfare state that is still in place today. The new level of Swedish comfort at home included its Jews. The Jewish population settled into a quiet but successful life, and their number jumped to 15,000 in 1968, when 3,000 Polish Jews came to Sweden fleeing pogroms.

Swedish suspicion of the Jew, however, wasn’t dead; in the wake of the Holocaust, it had merely gone to ground. Following the Six-Day War, anti-Semitism returned in raw form. The Swedish press depicted Israel as a power-hungry aggressor, and the left-leaning media used classic anti-Semitic imagery to indict all Jews. In 1969, Olof Palme, a charismatic and well-spoken Social Democrat, became prime minister. Palme was not only fiercely anti-American and anti-capitalist; he also believed in a Swedish alliance with the Palestine Liberation Organization and was a personal friend of Yasir Arafat’s, whom he invited to Sweden on official visits.  [......] Palme ensured that the PLO received generous Swedish aid; this tradition remains intact today, as Sweden gives the Palestinian Authority an annual 100 million dollars.

In 1986, Olof Palme was shot to death in central Stockholm. After the assassination, the prominent Swedish politician Per Gahrton went on the talk show “Radio Islam” and expressed his suspicion that the Mossad was behind the deed. “Individual murders,” he noted, “are part of the Zionist strategy.”

We know that Israel has a great need for organs, that there is a vast and illegal trade of organs which has been running for many years now, that the authorities are aware of it and that doctors in managing positions at the big hospitals participate, as well as civil servants at various levels. We also know that young Palestinian men disappeared, that they were brought back after five days, at night, under tremendous secrecy, stitched back together after having been cut from abdomen to chin.

[......]

Donald Bostrom, Swedish journalist, in the national newspaper Aftonbladet, 2009

 In Sweden, anti-Semitism preceded the Jews by hundreds of years; once the first Jew settled here, he was already familiar as the unclean, impure, and ungodly murderer of Christ. The popular story concerning the Jews has remained unchanged, even if the tellers of the tale have varied. They used to be clergymen and peasants, but today they are politicians and intellectuals with an influence easily rivaling that of their anti-Semitic forebears. So when a Swedish journalist wrote in the nation’s largest newspaper that IDF soldiers were harvesting organs from Palestinian children, the general public believed him. And even those who didn’t quite accept the tale as fact were undoubtedly struck by an ancient familiarity with its general thrust. In what is now the most secular country in the world it is hard to stir up hatred for the Jewish villain as the killer of God’s son. But the imagery of old is easily recycled, and Christ has become the Palestinian child, slaughtered by the chosen people.

Furthermore, recent demographic shifts are making Sweden’s population especially receptive to such tales. Between 1948 and 2003, 458,880 individuals were granted asylum in Sweden. As a function of generous laws regarding familial immigration, the country has seen a change in its basic demographic composition. According to the Swedish national bureau of statistics, 103,059 people immigrated to Sweden in 2012, and the four most common countries of origin were Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Syria. Today, there are an estimated 400,000 Muslims in Sweden, a country with a total population of 9 million. Sweden’s Jewish population still stands at 15,000. When members of the Muslim community express hatred toward Jews, physically and verbally, it’s labeled as an isolated incident fueled by the “Middle East conflict.” This is a conflict, moreover, about which Swedish public opinion is thoroughly resolved. A Transatlantic Trends poll from 2012 shows that 68 percent of Swedes have a “very negative” view of Israel. This is the highest negative rating of the Jewish state among the 12 polled countries in the European Union.

In places such as Malmo, Sweden’s third-largest city, the situation has become acute. Following an explosion in hate crimes against Jews in early 2011, Malmo’s mayor, Ilmar Reepalu, said that the city would never accept either anti-Semitism “or Zionism,” and warned that the “Israel Lobby” should not attempt to silence him from speaking out against the crimes committed by the Jewish state. The mayor went so far as to say that Jews should distance themselves from Israel in order to stay safe and that one should show understanding toward the mobs of Arabs who were attacking Jews in retaliation for Israeli terror.

Between 2010 and 2011, Shneur Kesselman, the city’s Orthodox rabbi, reported experiencing more than 50 anti-Semitic attacks. Malmö officials sat on their hands. Eventually the Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a warning to Jews traveling to Malmo and President Barack Obama sent Hannah Rosenthal, special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism, to talk with Malmö’s mayor. The mayor’s response: “Mr. Obama did not send Miss Rosenthal here to reprimand me, and I am not an anti-Semite. These things are being said about me to deflect from the 45-year illegal occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as the wars in Gaza.”  [........]

Once, when Ariel Sharon was celebrating his birthday, he ordered Israeli soldiers to slaughter some Palestinian children and drain their blood. He wanted to use their blood to make blood pudding, to serve at his birthday party. He has been in a coma since 2006, God is fair! Our parents told this story and we tell it to our children. He was called Dracula after this event.

Aisar Alshawabkeh, a spokesperson for one of Sweden’s largest mosques, January 10, 2014, at the time of Ariel Sharon’s death

As my mother told me, the Swedes are a practical people. In the 17th century, they brought in Jews to help where they were needed. During World War II, the Swedish government played the odds and won, twice. Sweden sent countless men, women, and children to certain death before finding it wise to switch teams.  [........]

In the wake of recent damning international reports on the state of Swedish Jewry, a befuddled Swedish society is asking itself how things got to this point. The truth is, this is how it has been from the start. The overtly anti-Semitic words of Martin Luther are rarely used these days, but the sentiment has never really vanished. My mother stood in front of her class in 1950 and had her features drawn, highlighting the flaws of the degenerate Jewish gene pool. In 1994, neo-Nazis told me that I should be turned into a lampshade, like my relatives. In 2012, an Arab man on a train harassed my kippah-wearing six-year-old son and me, while onlookers stayed silent. That same year, my eldest son was told he couldn’t choose Israel for his social-studies democracy project because Israel was not a democratic country. [.......]

Now a self-proclaimed liberal haven, Sweden has trusted time to heal the wounds of a sullied past. But time heals nothing, and the past is well and truly present—every time I go to pray behind the iron gates of my synagogue.

Read the rest – Hating Jews in Sweden

Obama smiles at Bob Bergdahl’s “Allah the most merciful” phrase

by Rodan ( 185 Comments › )
Filed under Afghanistan, Democratic Party, Dhimmitude, Islam, Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Progressives, Taliban at June 2nd, 2014 - 9:35 pm

Obamasmiles

At a press conference for the release of alleged deserter Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, his father Bob stated that Allah is the most merciful (Allah al-Raheem) in Pashtun. When Obama heard the “Allah the most merciful” phrase he smiled.

Bob Bergdahl speaks at 4:00 minutes in.

Obama’s reaction to the praise of Allah is very revealing.

Hillary Clinton blames the victim again

by Rodan ( 7 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Islamic Supremacism, Islamic Terrorism, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, NIGERIA, Progressives, Sharia (Islamic Law), Special Report at May 9th, 2014 - 9:08 pm

During Bill Clinton’s numerous sex scandal, Hillary always blamed the other woman and gave her husband a pass. Blaming the victim was Hillary’s Clinton’s way to squash the sex scandals. Now in the realm of foreign affairs, Hillary Clinton blames the victim.

In a despicable and classless act, Hillary Clinton blames the Nigerian government for the rise of Boko Haram. She goes through the typical leftist poverty causes terrorism canard. This Islamist group arose becasue of al-Qaeda cells setting up in Northern Nigeria.

WASHINGTON – Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Nigeria on Tuesday for corruption and poor living standards that she said encourage the sort of extremism typified by the attempted bombing of an American airliner.Speaking at a town hall meeting of State Department employees, Clinton said the Nigerian government has failed for years to address the legitimate needs of its people. She said that has contributed to a growing sense of alienation, particularly among the young who are then more susceptible to extremist ideologies.
“The failure of the Nigerian leadership over many years to respond to the legitimate needs of their own young people, to have a government that promoted a meritocracy, that really understood that democracy can’t just be given lip service, it has to be delivering services to the people, has meant there is a lot of alienation in that country and others,” she said.

“There has to be a recognition that in the last 10 years a lot of the indicators about quality of life in Nigeria have gone in the wrong direction,” Clinton said. She said illiteracy was growing, health standards were falling and described corruption in the country as “unbelievable.”

Hillary’s words are straight out of Huma’s mouth. Let us not forget it was Hillary’s refusal to designate Hoko Baram as a terror organization that has ham-stringed any serious action against this group.

Pro-Muslim Brotherhood Street Art in Williamsburg, Brooklyn

by Urban Infidel ( 36 Comments › )
Filed under Hipsters, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Muslim Brotherhood, Progressives at May 2nd, 2014 - 6:00 pm

(please click to enlarge photo)
Hipsters love Islam.
(Cross Posted @ Urban Infidel)

John Kerry’s Jewish friends

by Speranza ( 207 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Fatah, Hamas, Israel, Jihad, John Kerry, Leftist-Islamic Alliance at May 1st, 2014 - 1:00 pm

People such as Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak, corrupt and future jail bird Ehud Olmert, the left wing rag Ha’aretz, and the J Street crowd give John Kerry cover for his malicious words and actions.

by Caroline Glick

Anti-Semitism is not a simple bigotry. It is a complex neurosis. It involves assigning malign intent to Jews where none exists on the one hand, and rejecting reason as a basis for understanding the world and operating within it on the other hand.

John Kerry’s recent use of the term “Apartheid” in reference to Israel’s future was an anti-Semitic act.

In remarks before the Trilateral Commission a few days after PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas signed a unity deal with the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror groups, Kerry said that if Israel doesn’t cut a deal with the Palestinians soon, it will either cease to be a Jewish state or it will become “an apartheid state.”

Leave aside the fact that Kerry’s scenarios are based on phony demographic data.  [........]But even if Kerry’s fictional data were correct, the only “Apartheid state” that has any chance of emerging is the Palestinian state that Kerry claims Israel’s survival depends on. The Palestinians demand that the territory that would comprise their state must be ethnically cleansed of all Jewish presence before they will agree to accept sovereign responsibility for it.

In other words, the future leaders of that state – from the PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad alike — are so imbued with genocidal Jew hatred that they insist that all 650,000 Jews living in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria must be forcibly ejected from their homes. These Jewish towns, cities and neighborhoods must all be emptied before the Palestinians whose cause Kerry so wildly champions will even agree to set up their Apartheid state.

According to the 1998 Rome Statute, Apartheid is a crime of intent, not of outcome. It is the malign intent of the Palestinians –across their political and ideological spectrum — to found a state predicated on anti-Jewish bigotry and ethnic cleansing. In stark contrast, no potential Israeli leader or faction has any intention of basing national policies on racial subjugation in any form.

By ignoring the fact that every Palestinian leader views Jews as a contaminant that must be blotted out from the territory the Palestinians seek to control, (before they will even agree to accept sovereign responsibility for it), while attributing to Jews malicious intent towards the Palestinians that no Israeli Jewish politician with a chance of leading the country harbors, Kerry is adopting a full-throated and comprehensive anti-Semitic position.

It is both untethered from reason and libelous of Jews.

Speaking to the Daily Beast about Kerry’s remarks on Sunday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki was quick to use the “some of his best friends are Jewish,” defense.

In her words, “Secretary Kerry, like Justice Minister [Tzipi] Livni, and previous Israeli Prime Ministers [Ehud] Olmert and [Ehud] Barak, was reiterating why there’s no such thing as a one-state solution if you believe, as he does, in the principle of a Jewish state. He was talking about the kind of future Israel wants.”

So in order to justify his own anti-Semitism – and sell it to the American Jewish community – Kerry is engaging in vulgar partisan interference in the internal politics of another country. Indeed, Kerry went so far as to hint that if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is forced from power, and Kerry’s Jewish best friends replace him, then things will be wonderful.  In his words, if “there is a change of government or a change of heart, something will happen.” By inserting himself directly into the Israeli political arena, Kerry is working from his mediator Martin Indyk’s playbook.

Since his tenure as US ambassador to Israel during the Clinton administration, Indyk has played fast and dirty in Israeli politics, actively recruiting Israelis to influence Israeli public opinion to favor the Left while castigating non-leftist politicians and regular Israeli citizens as evil, stupid and destructive.

Livni, Olmert, Barak and others probably don’t share Kerry’s anti-Semitic sensitivities. Although their behavior enables foreigners like Kerry to embrace anti-Semitic positions, their actions are most likely informed by their egotistical obsessions with power. Livni, Olmert and Barak demonize their political opponents because the facts do not support their policies. The only card they have to play is the politics of personal destruction. And so they use it over and over again.

This worked in the past. That is why Olmert and Barak were able to form coalition governments. But the cumulative effects of the Palestinian terror war that began after Israel offered the PLO statehood at Camp David in 2000, the failure of the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, and the 2006 war with Lebanon have brought about a situation where the Israeli public is no longer willing to buy what the Left is selling.

Realizing this, Barak, Livni and others have based their claim to political power on their favored status in the US. In Netanyahu’s previous government, Barak parlayed the support he received from the Obama administration into his senior position as Defense Minister. Today, Livni’s position as Justice Minister and chief negotiator with the PLO owes entirely to the support she receives from the Obama administration.

[......]

Like Barak in Netanyahu’s previous government, today Livni provides Kerry and Indyk with “Israeli” cover for their anti-Israeli policies. And working with Kerry and Indyk, she is able to force herself and her popularly rejected policies on the elected government.

Livni – again, like Barak in Netanyahu’s previous government – has been able to hold her senior government position and exert influence over government policy by claiming that only her presence in the government is keeping the US at bay. According to this line of thinking, without her partnership, the Obama administration will turn on Israel.

[.......] Since Kerry’s anti-Semitic statements show that Livni has failed to shield Israel from the Obama administration’s hostility, the rationale for her continued inclusion in the government has disappeared.

The same goes for the Obama administration’s favorite American Jewish group J Street. Since its formation in the lead up to the 2008 Presidential elections, J Street has served as the Obama administration’s chief supporter in the US Jewish community. J Street uses rhetorical devices that were relevant to the political realities of the 1990s to claim that it is both “pro-peace and pro-Israel.” Twenty years into the failed peace process, for Israeli ears at least, these slogans ring hollow.

But the real problem with J Street’s claim isn’t that its rhetoric is irrelevant. The real problem is that its rhetoric is deceptive.

J Street’s record has nothing to do with either supporting Israel or peace. Rather it has a record of continuous anti-Israel agitation. J Street has continuously provided American Jewish cover for the administration’s anti-Israel actions by calling for it to take even more extreme actions. These have included calling for the administration to support an anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council, and opposing sanctions against Iran for its illicit nuclear weapons program. J Street has embraced the PLO’s newest unity pact with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. And now it is defending Kerry for engaging in rank anti-Semitism with his “Apartheid” remarks.

J Street’s political action committee campaigns to defeat pro-Israel members of Congress. And its campus operation brings speakers to US university campuses that slander Israel and the IDF and call for the divestment of university campuses from businesses owned by Israelis.

On Wednesday, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations is set to vote on J Street’s application to join the umbrella group as a “pro-peace, pro-Israel” organization.

Kerry’s “Apartheid” remarks are a watershed event. They represent the first time a sitting US Secretary of State has publically endorsed an anti-Semitic caricature of Jews and the Jewish state.

The best response that both the Israeli government and the Jewish community can give to Kerry’s act of unprecedented hostility and bigotry is to reject his Jewish enablers. Livni should be shown the door.  [.......]

Read the rest – John Kerry’s Jewish best friends