The Return of the Progressive Atrocity

The Return of the Progressive Atrocity. By Susie Linfield.

In the age of the “progressive atrocity,” PLO terrorist attacks on Israelis, Jews, and civilians throughout the world were hailed as instruments of liberation.

A very partial list of such incidents would include the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics (the games continued, nonetheless) and the Lod Airport massacre the same year (death toll: 26, along with at least 80 injured); the Ma’alot massacre of 1974, in which 115 Israelis, mainly schoolchildren, were taken hostage (resulting deaths: 31); the Entebbe hijacking of 1976, in which Israeli and other Jewish passengers were separated from others and threatened with death (most were rescued by Israeli commandos); the 1978 Coastal Road massacre, in which a civilian bus was highjacked (death toll: 38, including 13 children; 71 wounded); the 1982 attack on the Chez Jo Goldenberg kosher restaurant in Paris, considered at the time to be the worst incidence of antisemitism in France since the Holocaust (death toll: six, with 22 injured); and numerous other instances of air piracy. Various international groups, especially Baader Meinhof of Germany and the Japanese Red Army, sometimes assisted their Palestinian brothers “in solidarity.” Not all leftists or leftwing organizations supported these actions, but to criticize them was a sign of “bourgeois moralism” as Ghassan Kanafani, a leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, put it. …

In recent years, the Left’s embrace of terror seemed to have ebbed; you won’t find many defenders of al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, or Boko Haram. The notable exception has been groups devoted to the destruction of Israel: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, all of which still garner enthusiasm and deluded admiration. …

The extraordinary nature of the pro-Palestinian demonstrations that have swept through the capitals of the West — demonstrations that began before Israel dropped a single bomb on Gaza — has, perhaps, not been fully appreciated. Horrific massacres of unarmed civilians are, unfortunately, taking place right now in South Sudan, Congo, Ethiopia, Syria, and Darfur. Unforgivably, the so-called international community usually ignores them. But none inspires cries of esteem for the perpetrators and acclaim for their crimes. And nowhere are the victims — defenseless civilians, including children and their mothers — blamed for being murdered. That is what is happening now. The deadliest single day in the post-Holocaust history of the Jewish people has been greeted in some quarters with joy and — to be blunt — an entirely undisguised hatred of Jews. …

Talk about useful idiots:

In 1979, leftists who supported the Iranian Revolution had a rude awakening when the mullahs came to power and promptly executed them, along with secularists, union organizers, intellectuals, feminists, and everyone else who fit into the enormously capacious category of a counterrevolutionary.

There was a lesson here: Activists have the responsibility to know who and what they support, and to separate themselves — openly and decisively — from programs and regimes that are predicated on violence and repression.

Similarly, those who imagine that Hamas’s slaughters may have promoted “liberation,” “justice,” and “freedom” for Palestinians, as the banners demand, have a big surprise in store.

Unlike Iran in 1979, though, there’s no mystery as to what kind of state Hamas (an acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement) aims to create; we need only look at what it already has created. This time, no one can plead ignorance. There’s little liberation, justice, or freedom to be found in Gaza, where there are no opposition political parties, no elections, and no freedom of religion, the press, or protest. Opponents are arrested, tortured, and sometimes executed. (Yahya Sinwar, a head of Hamas’s armed wing, was known as “the butcher of Khan Younis” for his brutality toward other Palestinians.) Abortion and homosexuality are outlawed (what are those protestors with “Queers for Palestine” signs thinking?); mentioning trans rights would be unwise. It is legal for husbands to beat their wives, and so-called honor killings go unpunished. The ruling clique is notoriously corrupt, and though Gazans are very poor, Hamas is a very rich organization. “I Stand with Palestine!” demonstrators and writers proudly proclaim while lauding Hamas for having “rejuvenated a sense of political possibility” and hastening “the hour of liberation.”

But what, exactly, are they standing for? And what kind of liberation will this be? Aside from the Taliban, Hamas has established the least progressive pseudo-state on Earth. …

What do you do with neighbors brainwashed since birth to kill you?

A ceasefire (as opposed to a humanitarian pause) would be entirely unilateral on Israel’s part, which raises the question of why Israel would lay down its arms against a forthrightly eliminationist enemy that holds more than 220 hostages. What would happen the day after that one-sided cessation? (Hamas has shot almost 10,000 rockets into Israel, including Tel Aviv, since October 7th; in the north, Hezbollah launches attacks.)

Apparently, Hamas should be allowed to keep its bombs and bomb factories, assault rifles, drones, grenades, missiles, rockets, and tens of thousands of fighters as it plans future mass slaughters. How this will lead to anything approaching peace, as its advocates insist, rather than to war ad infinitum, as Hamas promises, is bewildering. The other option, of course, is that many believe that unending death and destruction are precisely the conditions that Israelis deserve.

Hamas does not recognize the category of “civilian” when it comes to Israelis, which is why a straight-faced, high-level Hamas spokesman could tell Britain’s Sky News: “We didn’t kill any civilians.” He wasn’t exactly lying; that’s just how he sees it. …

The enormous numbers of unarmed Palestinians who have been, in Hamas’s parlance, “martyred” are no problem for the leadership: as the group’s founding document explains, “Death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of … wishes.” That is not mere rhetoric; as the massacres unfolded, senior political leader Ismail Haniyeh insisted that “victory or martyrdom” are the only choices. Ordinary Palestinians, who had no say in the attacks, may see things differently. They are stunned by and terrified of the fury of the Israeli response. …

Unlike the “martyrs,” including children, whom Hamas is proud to sacrifice, its fighters are safe underground where they hoard stocks of food, fuel, medicine and, of course, weapons. Much of the senior leadership, however, lives in luxury in Doha, Tehran, and other cities. Hamas’s desire for dead Gazans has never been more evident than in this war. It has not joined the international calls for a humanitarian corridor, and it refuses to release the kidnapped hostages, which is the precondition for ending the siege.

The white population of the world is about 8%, and Jewish people are just a quarter of one percent. What if the whole world became brainwashed by wokeness to hate whites, the way that many hate Jews? They hate our accomplishments, our economic competitiveness, our whiteness … Yes, whites did invent the modern world. Get over it.

They make everything about race, then encourage all the non-whites to hate whites.

“It Depends on the Context”: One down, two to go

“It Depends on the Context”: One down, two to go.

At a Congressional hearing on December 5, Congresswoman Stefanik questioned Harvard University President Claudine Gay, MIT University President Sally Kornbluth, and UPenn President, Elizabeth Magill about the rise of antisemitism on their campuses. Three PC women, running some of the most influential institutions in the USA.

Congresswoman Stefanik: Dr. Kornbluth, at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT’s code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment? Yes or no?

President Kornbluth: If targeted at individuals not making public statements.

Congresswoman Stefanik: Yes or no, calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?

President Kornbluth: I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus.

Congresswoman Stefanik: But you’ve heard chants for Intifada.

President Kornbluth: I’ve heard chants which can be antisemitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.

Congresswoman Stefanik: So those would not be, according to the MIT’s code of conduct or rules.

President Kornbluth: That would be investigated as harassment if pervasive and severe.

Congresswoman Stefanik: Ms. Magill at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?

President Magill: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment. Yes.

Congresswoman Stefanik: I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?

President Magill: If it is directed, and severe, pervasive, it is harassment.

Congresswoman Stefanik: So the answer is yes.

President Magill: It is a context dependent decision, Congresswoman. …

Congresswoman Stefanik: And Dr. Gay at Harvard? Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no?

President Gay: It can be depending on the context.

Etc. etc. Lying and evasion, but the moral stance shone through clear enough. The Congress and public do not like what they see, and many donors are furious.

Melissa Korn at the WSJ yesterday:

The president of the University of Pennsylvania [Liz Magil] and the chairman of its board of trustees [Scott L. Bok] resigned Saturday, capping a tumultuous week at the Ivy League school stemming from statements the president made about antisemitism at a congressional hearing Tuesday.  …

The presidents of Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have also faced calls to resign, and leaders at other schools are under intense scrutiny regarding how they balance the rights of pro-Palestinian protesters with the safety of students on campus. …

Look who she alienated:

Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan — who chairs the Wharton School’s advisory board — said in October he would halt further donations to his alma mater unless Magill and Bok were removed. Diplomat Jon Huntsman Jr., said his family would halt contributions, and cosmetics tycoon Ronald S. Lauder sent a letter in October saying he was reconsidering future gifts.

On Thursday, financier Ross Stevens said he would rescind a $100 million donation made in 2017 unless Magill was ousted.

The public and Congress are finding out what the universities are like, and find them morally repugnant.

Student at MIT:

Right and wrong in wokedom. Using the wrong pronouns will get you expelled, but calling for genocide on Jews or white people is alright.

Ok, I found these are funny:

January 6, 2021 was a smoke screen for the real insurrection of November 3, 2020

January 6, 2021 was a smoke screen for the real insurrection of November 3, 2020. By Albin Sadar.

The release of more video and cell phone tapes from January 6 by new House Speaker Mike Johnson shows further evidence of a setup by the Feds that their so-called insurrection was staged.

All sides will acknowledge the fact that then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to have extra security on January 6. However, there is a bigger question that no one, Left, Right or Center, seems to be asking:

Why? …

The only obvious answer to why Pelosi wanted to guarantee a riotous breach of the Capitol was what she knew would be the actual results of the Electoral College vote if the process were allowed to run its course. Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, among others, had previously made noise about challenging election results in several swing states. And despite what many have debated, there was tangible potential for Pence to delay the certification for a couple of weeks to look into the evidence of significant vote-tampering and fraud. …

So, at the time, Pelosi knew that a halt in the proceedings would lead to an investigation. And an investigation would lead to those questions being covered, albeit reluctantly, by the entire mainstream media. What actually transpired over the three additional days of counting in the 2020 Election would be exposed. And the narrative of the most secure election in American history would crumble in front of the eyes of everybody in this country and across the globe. …

The patriots in Washington, D.C. showed up to highlight one very important message: “Stop the Steal.”

Pelosi’s action — as well as inaction — diverted attention from that message; she refocused our sights on the word “insurrection” in order to keep President Donald Trump from returning to the White House as a result of the true, states’ election totals of 2020. And the Left continues nonstop that charade in order to keep Trump from the White House in 2024.

With each passing day, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the two biggest blemishes recently on America as a great and free nation are the stolen presidential election of 2020, and the subsequent incarceration of those patriots who exercised their guaranteed First Amendment right to free speech to contest it. The election tampering advanced the Left’s directive of “fundamental transformation” of the country, which included imprisonment without bail or trial of those with whom the tyrannical administration disagreed.

Same again in 2024? Or time to step it up? An article in the Washington Post appears to advocate for this “assassination” in the name of the “common good,” drawing parallels with the assassination of Julius Caesar.

And here’s a closeup of the image:

Melania Trump endorses Tucker Carlson For VP

Melania Trump endorses Tucker Carlson For VP. By Darren Beattie.

Why Tucker is the only logical choice for VP:

Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Trump doesn’t need a conventional vice president. He doesn’t need someone who will shore up his electoral coalition. Donald Trump is the Republican Party; everyone who doesn’t like it has left. President Trump doesn’t need another Mike Pence. He needs a vice president he can trust, both in this campaign and beyond. He needs someone who will make sure the historic movement he started doesn’t end with him.

All the conventional candidates will betray the president—just like they already have by entering the race against him. They’re freeloaders who don’t offer Trump any value. They want to return Washington to the status quo that President Trump upended. They want to terraform a new swamp.

Tucker Carlson is loyal to President Trump’s person and vision. This, of course, doesn’t mean that Tucker isn’t willing to be critical of Trump’s decisions. It is precisely because of Tucker’s loyalty to Trump’s America First legacy that, at certain times, Tucker would take to his television audience to voice his displeasure (at, say, Trump’s hiring of John Bolton). True loyalty is not only compatible with constructive criticism; it requires it. Contrast this with the seemingly endless line of sycophants salivating at the first opportunity to stick the knife in Trump when it counts. Nobody has denounced the corrupt judicial campaign against President Trump more vocally than Tucker Carlson. Nobody is surer to have his back against the bogus charges filed by rogue prosecutors. Every career politician will turn on him, just like they turned on him when the Access Hollywood tapes dropped. …

Tucker Carlson has the starpower and charisma to hit the campaign trail hard. President Trump will almost certainly be confined to a courtroom for large swaths of the campaign season. He needs someone who can get out and rally voters on his behalf. None of the others can attr a crowd. They’re politicians, not entertainers. …

However, the Tucker VP debate just took a very interesting turn. According to reports, former First Lady Melania Trump wants the fiery populist on Trump’s 2024 ticket as well, and we’re hearing that President Trump is thrilled.

Radar Online:

Sources familiar with the matter revealed that the former first lady has pushed ex-President Trump to name Carlson as his running mate for next year.

According to Axios, Melania is an “advocate” for the fired Fox News star.

Sources close to Trump’s 2024 campaign also claimed that Melania believes Carlson “would make a powerful onstage extension” of her ex-president husband with less than one year to go before the election in November.
Axios also suggested that a Trump-Carlson ticket “might encourage” Melania to hit the campaign trail – something she has largely failed to do ever since Trump announced his 2024 run late last year.

Former President Trump previously hinted at a possible Trump-Carlson ticket, and he admitted that he “likes” the fired Fox News star “a lot.”

Everyone needs to hear this: Tucker Carlson interviews Alex Jones

Everyone needs to hear this: Tucker Carlson interviews Alex Jones. Yes, I know, Alex Jones. However, he often gets things correct, so we’d better pay attention.

When that YouTube gets taken down, try Twitter:

I sure hope Jones is wrong, and is just scaring us for clicks.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Reversing Jacinda Ardern’s racist policies in New Zealand

Reversing Jacinda Ardern’s racist policies in New Zealand. By Oliver Hartwich.

The previous government, first led by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and later by Chris Hipkins, initiated a series of policies sometimes rather disparagingly referred to as “Māorification.”

This involved the establishment of separate agencies for Māori, such as the Māori Health Authority.

Renaming government institutions to Māori names was another significant change. One prominent example was the New Zealand Transport Authority becoming Waka Kotahi. Numerous other government ministries and agencies were similarly renamed.

The integration of Te Reo Māori (the Māori language) into government documents, and the increasing use of Māori concepts in legislation and judicature, marked further steps in this direction.


Not working

“New Zealand” it is then.


The new coalition, comprising Luxon’s New Zealand National Party, the libertarian ACT Party and New Zealand First, aims to reverse these developments. … The coalition agreements between the parties have set the framework for these policy reversals. …

Key points include legislating English as an official language and ensuring that public service departments primarily use English names (except those related to Māori). The agreement also mandates that the government will not advance policies that ascribe different rights or responsibilities based on race or ancestry.

The National-ACT coalition agreement reinforces these themes, with a focus on removing co-governance from public service delivery and ensuring government contracts are awarded based on value without racial discrimination.

The National-ACT agreement also stipulates that public services should be prioritised based on need, not race, and proposes a review of all legislation including references to Treaty of Waitangi principles. …

Like unscrambling an egg:

The new Government’s policy shifts represent a fundamental change from its predecessor’s approach to bicultural and Treaty of Waitangi issues. Until the Ardern Government took over in 2017, issues relating to the Treaty, though always important, did not play a prominent role in New Zealand politics. Nor were they as divisive as they became under that government. …

Once introduced, any new policy soon creates its own stakeholders, which always makes a return to the status quo ante difficult.

Any change creates losers, and losers will squawk. They would squawk less if they were shamed into admitting they were racist, and that treating people differently on the basis of race is immoral. But of course they are proud of getting preferential treatment because of their race.


EVs Are Bombing

EVs Are Bombing. By the Issues and Insights Editorial Board.

The amount of taxpayer money being lavished on EVs is mind-boggling. … The Texas Public Policy Foundation estimates that EVs would cost $50,000 more than they do today were it not for all this “help.”

Yet despite all the largesse, dealers can’t move the things off their lots. Last week, 4,000 dealers wrote Biden a letter begging him to ease up on his plans to mandate EV sales. They are already suffering as carmakers flood the market with Biden-approved EVs. (You can read the entire letter here.)

“They are not selling nearly as fast as they are arriving at our dealerships — even with deep price cuts, manufacturer incentives, and generous government incentives,” they wrote. “Already, electric vehicles are stacking up on our lots, which is our best indicator of customer demand in the marketplace.”

The word is getting out, based on experience, that EV’s are expensive, unreliable. They are great cars, except for those heavy, weak, fragile, slow-charging, short-lived batteries.

For a while, EV sales were brisk. But the bottom has fallen out now that most of the wealthy, early-adoptor, virtue-signaling homeowners have bought theirs.

The rest of the car-buying public is more concerned with mundane things such as affordability, range, and not having to worry about the car spontaneously blowing up.

“Today’s current technology is not adequate to support the needs of the majority of our consumers,” the dealers explained to Biden.

This situation isn’t likely to improve as current EV owners realize the true cost and inconvenience of owning one of these “planet saving” cars.

Consumer Reports last week reported that EVs are far less reliable than gas-powered cars, with owners reporting “79% more problems than conventional cars.” … EV owners are also finding that repair costs tend to be much higher. One study found that they cost 29% more to repair than conventional cars …

EVs are also more expensive to insure. An analysis by Policygenius, an insurance comparison shopping site, found that an EV sedan costs 18% more to insure, on average, than a gas-powered one. …


The government never admits a mistake. So the leftists who run it will just shower more taxpayer subsidies. There’s already talk of an industry bailout as car makers try to absorb the massive losses they are incurring on their EV lines.

And, if more subsidies don’t work, the left will simply ban gas-powered cars outright. That’s what California and several other liberal states are already planning, and it’s why the Biden administration wants to impose regulations that would force two-thirds of new cars sold to be electric.

And they catch on fire. Badly.

Conventional cars don’t do this. The fire was started and really got going due to burning and exploding EV batteries, even though most of the cars in the carpark were conventional. Over a thousand cars destroyed.