A Review of “Revolutionary Yiddishland: A History of Jewish Radicalism,” Part 1 of 3

Introduction

Alain Brossat and Sylvie Klingberg’s Revolutionary Yiddishland: A History of Jewish Radicalism was first published in France in 1983. A revised edition appeared in 2009 and an English translation in 2016. Intended for a mainly Jewish readership, the book is essentially an apologia for Jewish communist militants in Eastern Europe in the early to mid-twentieth century. Brossat, a Jewish lecturer in philosophy at the University of Paris, and Klingberg, an Israeli sociologist, interviewed dozens of former revolutionaries living in Israel in the early 1980s. In their testimony they recalled “the great scenes” of their lives such as “the Russian Civil War, the building of the USSR, resistance in the camps, the war in Spain, the armed struggle against Nazism, and the formation of socialist states in Eastern Europe.”[i] While each followed different paths, “the constancy of these militants’ commitment was remarkable, as was the firmness of the ideas and aspirations that underlay it.” Between the two world wars, communist militancy was “the center of gravity of their lives.”[ii]

While communism in Europe in the early- to mid-twentieth century was characterized by economic dysfunction, systematic oppression, summary executions, and the elimination of entire ethnic groups, Brossat and Klingberg wistfully recall it as a time when European Jewry “failed to achieve its hopes, its utopias, its political programs and strategies.” Instead, the messianic dreams of radical Jews were “broken on the rocks of twentieth-century European history.” A product of their ethnocentric infatuation with the “romance” of Jewish involvement in radical political movements, Revolutionary Yiddishland is Brossat and Klingberg’s hagiographic attempt to resurrect a history that is today “more than lost, being actually denied, even unpronounceable.”

Alain Brossat

The unstated reason for this omission lies in the determination of Jews to absolve their co-ethnics of any responsibility for the crimes of communism, and to ensure the advent of German National Socialism is always framed in a way that conduces to a simplified narrative of saintly Jewish victimhood and German (and by extension White European) malevolence. Maintaining this narrative is supremely important for the legions of Jewish “diversity” activists and propagandists throughout the West, given the status of “the Holocaust” as the moral and rhetorical foundation of today’s White displacement agenda. Invocation of this narrative is reflexively used to stifle opposition to the Jewish diaspora strategies of mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism. By contrast, free discussion of the Jewish role in communist crimes undermines Jewish pretentions to moral authority grounded in their self-designated status as history’s preeminent victims. This polarity accounts for the fact that, since 1945, over 150 feature films have been made about “the Holocaust” while the number of films that have been made about the genocide of millions of Eastern Europeans can be counted on one hand — and none have been produced by Hollywood.

The critical importance of suppressing discussion of this unsavory aspect of Jewish history was underscored by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen in his 2013 screed The Devil That Never Dies: The Rise of Global Antisemitism (reviewed here). For Goldhagen, any claim Jews were responsible for the Bolshevik Revolution and its predations is a “calumny,” and morally reprehensible because “If you associate Jews with communism, or worse, hold communism to be a Jewish invention and weapon, every time the theme, let alone the threat, of communism, Marxism, revolution, or the Soviet Union comes up, it also conjures, reinforces, even deepens thinking prejudicially about Jews and the animus against Jews in one’s country.”[iii] It is therefore imperative the topic remain taboo and discussion of it suppressed — regardless of how many historians (Jewish and non-Jewish) confirm the decisive role Jews played in providing the ideological basis for, and the establishment, governance and administration of, the former communist dictatorships of Central and Eastern Europe.

In a recent article for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, journalist Cnaan Liphshiz, while noting that the Goldhagen approach of absolute denial constitutes “a logical strategy” for Jews, admits the facts do “reaffirm in essence” the assessment of those like “promoter of Holocaust denial” Mark Weber who observed that: “Although officially Jews have never made up more than five percent of the country’s total population, they played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime.” Liphshiz notes how Russia’s main Jewish museum has, since 2012, “tackled head on the subject of revolutionary Jews” in an exhibition that “underlines unapologetically how and why Jews became central to the revolution.” Knowing that outright denial of the pivotal Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution and the murderous regimes it spawned is intellectually untenable, a growing number of Jewish historians concede the point, but insist this leading role was morally justified because it was essentially “defensive” in nature.

Thus, while freely admitting Jews had “an outsized role in the revolution,” Boruch Gorin, chairman of Moscow’s Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center, insists that “there were very good reasons for this,” with “anti-Semitism” being foremost among them. For Gorin, the revolution, while offering “Russia’s Jews many opportunities, equal rights and education and a chance to fill the vacuum left by the elite that was forced into exile,” most importantly offered a haven from a “wave of pogroms” in the Ukraine and elsewhere that “some historians call a dress rehearsal for the Holocaust.” According to this conception, a Jew in 1917 “had two choices: revolution or exile.”

Boruch Gorin

Andrew Joyce has explored how Jewish historians and activists have distorted and weaponized the history of “pogroms” in the former Russian Empire. The mythos forged around these events, crystallized in the Russo-Jewish Committee’s propaganda pamphlet The Persecution of the Jews in Russia (1881) and reporting in Jewish-controlled newspapers throughout the West, was pivotal in accelerating the development of modern, international Jewish politics. This narrative revolves around certain claims: that Jews were oppressed for centuries in Russia; that the Pale of Settlement was a virtual prison; that tsarist authorities actively organized and directed pogroms; that pogroms were genocidal and extremely violent in nature; and that Russians were uncivilized and barbaric savages. Contemporary Jewish historians like Simon Sebag Montefiore continue to credit lurid tales of pogroms where Jews were “massacred in such gleefully ingenious atrocities — disemboweled, dismembered, decapitated; children were cutleted, roasted and eaten in front of raped mothers.”[iv] Joyce notes how the dissemination of such pornographic accounts were key to ensuring “that mass Jewish chain migration to the West went on untroubled and unhindered by nativists. After all, wasn’t the bigoted nativist just a step removed from the rampaging Cossack?”

Uncritically drawing on this bogus narrative, establishment historians typically ascribe the pogroms to irrational manifestations of hate against Jews, tsarist malevolence, the pathological jealousy and primitive barbarity of the Russian mob, and the “blood libel.” The real underlying causes of peasant uprisings against Jews, such as the Jewish monopolization of entire industries (including the sale of liquor to peasants on credit), predatory moneylending, and radical political agitation, are completely ignored, despite tsarist authorities having repeatedly expressed alarm over how “Jews were exploiting the unsophisticated and ignorant rural inhabitants, reducing them to a Jewish serfdom.”[v] Initiatives to move Jews into less socially damaging economic niches, through extending educational opportunities and drafting Jews into the army, were ineffective in altering this basic pattern. With this in mind, even the revolutionary anarchist Mikhail Bakunin concluded that Jews were “an exploiting sect, a blood-sucking people, a unique, devouring parasite tightly and intimately organized … cutting across all the differences in political opinion.”[vi]

In Revolutionary Yiddishland, Brossat and Klingberg posit the “Jewish Bolshevism as morally justified ethnic self-defense” thesis, insisting that “anti-Semitism” was “an insidious poison hovering in the air of the time” that comprised “the sinister background music to the action of the Yiddishland revolutionaries.”[vii] The real causes of anti-Jewish sentiment among the native peasantry are, once again, comprehensively ignored. Rather than seeing Jewish communist militants as willing agents of ethnically-motivated oppression and mass murder, the authors depict them as noble victims who tragically “linked their fate to the grand narrative of working-class emancipation, fraternity between peoples, socialist egalitarianism” rather than to “a Jewish state solidly established on its ethnic foundations, territorial conquests and realpolitik alliances.”[viii] In other words, they mistakenly held communism rather than Zionism to be best for the Jews.

Determined to absolve their co-ethnics of any culpability for communist crimes, Brossat and Klingberg assure us that the militancy of their informants “was always messianic, optimistic, oriented to the Good — a fundamental and irreducible difference from that of the fascists with which some people have been tempted to compare it, on the pretext that one ‘militant ideal’ is equivalent to any other.”[ix] In other words, tens of millions may have died because of the actions of Jewish communist militants, but their hearts were pure. Regarding such arguments, Kevin MacDonald observed how Jewish involvement with Bolshevism “is perhaps the most egregious example of Jewish moral particularism in all of history. The horrific consequences of Bolshevism for millions of non-Jewish Soviet citizens do not seem to have been an issue for Jewish leftists — a pattern that continues into the present.”[x]

Jewish participation in Bolshevism as ethnic revenge

That their motivations were far from pure, and that ethnic animosity and desire for revenge were key factors driving the large-scale Jewish support of, and participation in, communist movements was obvious to the Jewish historian Norman Cantor who made the following observation:

The Bolshevik Revolution and some of its aftermath represented, from one perspective, Jewish revenge. During the heyday of the Cold War, American Jewish publicists spent a lot of time denying that — as 1930s anti-Semites claimed — Jews played a disproportionately important role in Soviet and world Communism. The truth is until the early 1950s Jews did play such a role, and there is nothing to be ashamed of. In time Jews will learn to take pride in the record of the Jewish Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. It was a species of striking back.[xi]

This corresponds with Kevin MacDonald’s assessment in Culture of Critique that the disproportionate participation of Jews in Bolshevik crimes was, in large part, “motivated by revenge against peoples that had historically been anti-Jewish.” One of the (non-Jewish) pioneers of the Dada movement, Hugo Ball, immediately recognized the obvious agenda behind the lopsided Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution and resulting Soviet administration. Observing the make-up of the first Bolshevik Executive Committee (four out of six of whom were Jewish), he noted that “it would be strange if these men, who make decisions about expropriation and terror, did not feel old racial resentments against the Orthodox and pogrommatic Russia.”[xii]

Leading Jewish communists, like founder of the Mensheviks Yuli Martov, who became a close associate of Lenin and Trotsky, made a point of recalling his childhood experiences of Russian and Ukrainian anti-Semitism. The 1881 Odessa pogrom was his “first taste of primitive Russian anti-Semitism,” and Martov was “shaken to the depths of his being by the pogromist barbarity of Tsarist Russia.” The event left a “permanent mark on his impressionable mind,” and he later underlined the connection between this experience and his subsequent revolutionary career, posing the question: “Would I have become what I became if the Russian reality had not imprinted her coarse fingers on my plastic, youthful soul in that memorable night and carefully planted under the cover of that burning pity which she aroused in my childlike heart, the seeds of a redeeming hatred?”[xiii]

While Trotsky, the architect of the Bolshevik insurrection and creator of the Red Army, claimed his Jewish origins and Jewish interests did not guide his attraction to Bolshevism, his biographer Joshua Rubenstein disagrees, noting that he “was a Jew in spite of himself,” who “gravitated to Jews wherever he lived,” and “never abided physical attacks on Jews, and often intervened to denounce such violence and organize a defense.”[xiv] As leader of the Red Army during the Civil War, Trotsky “had to deal with the anti-Semitic attitudes among the population,” and “successfully recruited Jews for the Red Army because they were eager to avenge pogrom attacks.”[xv] At the same time, he “voiced his concern over the high number of Jews in the Cheka, knowing that their presence could only provoke hatred towards Jews as a group.” Trotsky was feted by Jews worldwide as “an avenger of Jewish humiliations under Tsarism, bringing fire and slaughter to their worst enemies.”[xvi]

Leon Trotsky

Ethnic revenge was also a motivation for Lazar Kaganovich, the Jewish member of the Politburo who presided over the forced famine that took the lives of millions of Ukrainian peasants and the mass deportation of “anti-Semitic” Cossacks to Siberia in the 1930s. Kaganovich had “battled the chauvinistic and anti-Semitic Black Hundreds, especially strong in Kyiv, both before and after the 1911 Beilis affair, the Russian version of the Dreyfus affair.”[xvii] The assassination of the Russian Prime Minister Stolypin in the same year resulted in the Black Hundreds attempting “to whip up a pogrom.” In response, the “Bolsheviks took measures to protect themselves and to rebuff this threat,” and “Kaganovich only joined the party after these momentous events.” He studied Lenin’s works at this time, and the Bolshevik leader’s article “Stolypin and Revolution” which depicted Stolypin as “an organizer of Black Hundred gangs and anti-Semitic pogroms” made a “big impression” on him.[xviii]

Kaganovich later became known as the “butcher of the Ukrainians.” As Soviet leader in the Ukraine he received reports documenting “widespread dissatisfaction among workers fuelled by high unemployment, with widespread anti-Semitism, with workers and peasants denouncing the ‘dominance of red nobility of Yids.’” Kaganovich played a “highly visible” role in suppressing this “nationalist deviation” in 1925–28, and later oversaw the forced collectivization of 1932–33, conceived as part of an “assault on the Ukrainian nationalist intelligentsia.” The country was sealed off and all food supplies and livestock were confiscated with Kaganovich leading “expeditions into the countryside with brigades of OGPU troopers” who used “the gun, the lynch mob and the Gulag system to break the villages.”[xix] The secret police, led by Genrikh Yagoda (also Jewish) exterminated all “anti-party elements.” Furious that insufficient Ukrainians were being shot, Kaganovich set a quota of 10,000 executions a week. Eighty percent of Ukrainian intellectuals were shot. During the winter of 1932–33, 25,000 Ukrainians per day were being shot or left to die of starvation.[xx]

The Bolsheviks mounted murderous campaigns against entire ethnic groups. The Soviet government killed at least 30 million people, most in the first 25 years of the regime’s existence during the height of Jewish power. The Jewish intellectual, G.A. Landau, writing in 1923, was stunned by the “cruelty, sadism, and violence” of Jewish functionaries in the Red Army and secret police “who yesterday did not know how to use a gun” but who “are now found among the executioners and cutthroats.”[xxi] I.M. Bikerman was similarly shocked at the “disproportionate and immeasurably fervent Jewish participation in the torment of half-dead Russia by the Bolsheviks.”[xxii] In response to attempts by Jews to disassociate their ethnicity from such figures, the Jewish intellectual I.A. Bromberg noted the cognitive dissonance in the Jewish “passion for seeking out and extolling the Jews famous in various fields of cultural life,” and especially “the shameless circus around the name of Einstein,” while simultaneously distancing themselves from Jewish communist criminals. D.S. Pasmanik agreed, noting how “Ethnic Jews not only do not denounce an Einstein or an Ehrlich; they do not even reject the baptized Heine and Boerne. And this means they have no right to disavow Trotsky and Zinoviev.”[xxiii]


[i] Alain Brossat & Sylvie Klingberg, Revolutionary Yiddishland: A History of Jewish Radicalism (London; Verso, 2016), xii.

[ii] Ibid., 59.

[iii] Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, The Devil That Never Dies (New York NY; Little, Brown & Co., 2013), 291; 126.

[iv] Simon Sebag Montefiore, The Romanovs 1630-1918 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 2016), 50.

[v] John Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 5.

[vi] Robert Wistrich, From Ambivalence to Betrayal: the Left, the Jews and Israel (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2012), 186.

[vii] Brossat & Klingberg, Revolutionary Yiddishland, 85.

[viii] Ibid., ix.

[ix] Ibid., 56.

[x] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth?Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (Westport, CT: Praeger, Revised Paperback edition, 2001), xl.

[xi] Norman Cantor, The Jewish Experience: An Illustrated History of Jewish Culture & Society (New York; Castle Press, 1996), 364.

[xii] Albert Boime, “Dada’s Dark Secret,” In: Washton-Long, Baigel & Heyd (Eds.) Jewish Dimensions in Modern Visual Culture: Anti-Semitism, Assimilation, Affirmation, (Waltham MA: Brandeis University Press, 2010), 96.

[xiii] Robert Wistrich, Revolutionary Jews from Marx to Trotsky (London: George G. Harrap & Co Ltd, 1976), 178.

[xiv] Joshua Rubenstein, Leon Trotsky: A Revolutionary’s Life (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 2013), 67; 78; 52.

[xv] Ibid., 113.

[xvi] Wistrich, Revolutionary Jews, 199.

[xvii] Hiroaki Kuromiya, Russia’s People of Empire: Life Stories from Eurasia, 1500 to the Present (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012), 276.

[xviii] E. A. Rees, Iron Lazar: A Political Biography of Lazar Kaganovich (Anthem Press, 2013), 6.

[xix] Myroslav Shkandriij, Jews in Ukrainian Literature: Representation and Identity (Yale University Press, 2009), 137.

[xx] Lesa Melnyczuk, Silent Memories, Traumatic Lives (RHYW, 2013), 25.

[xxi] Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), 183.

[xxii] Ibid., 183.

[xxiii] Ibid., 184.

Visit link:

A Review of “Revolutionary Yiddishland: A History of Jewish Radicalism,” Part 1 of 3

Read More...

January 29, 2018   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

The Nazis & the Jews – Jewish Virtual Library

Bookstore Glossary Library Links News Publications Timeline Virtual Israel Experience Anti-Semitism Biography History Holocaust Israel Israel Education Myths & Facts Politics Religion Travel US & Israel Vital Stats Women donate subscribe Contact About Home Virtual Israel Experience Timeline Publications News Links Glossary Bookstore Anti-Semitism Biography History Holocaust Israel Israel Education Myths & Facts Politics Religion Travel US & Israel Vital Stats Women Category The Holocaust

Basic History

Reference

Persecution

The Nazis

Nazis & The Jews

Rescuers

Biographies

World Reaction

Aftermath

Join our mailing list

Support JVL

Read the original post:

The Nazis & the Jews – Jewish Virtual Library

Read More...

January 29, 2018   Posted in: Anti-Jewish  Comments Closed |

Dershowitz: I Wouldn’t Have Campaigned for Obama If I Knew …

‘Release the Damn Memo’: Geraldo Calls on Congress to Expose Whether FBI Probe ‘Politically-Motivated’

Maine Gov on State ‘Medicaid-to-Work’ Program: I Talked to Trump About It Going National

Harvard Law Professor and longtime Democrat Alan Dershowitz said he would not have campaigned for then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) if he knew about the future president’s photo op with Louis Farrakhan.

Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, is a “virulent anti-Semite and anti-American,” Dershowitz said on “Fox & Friends.”

“He has called Judaism a gutter religion. He is a horrible, horrible human being,” he said.

A photographer, Askia Muhammad, showed Fox News’ Tucker Carlson a 2005 picture of Obama and Farrakhan smiling together.

He said that afterward, the Congressional Black Caucus contacted him and demanded to have the photo back.

I gave the original disk to him and in a sense swore myself to secrecy because I had quietly made a copy for myself, Muhammad said.

Muhammad said he thought the CBC was concerned a photo with Farrakhan could hurt the young senator’s future presidential aspirations.

Muhammad added that Obama had Nation of Islam followers working in his Chicago senate office.

Dershowitz said he threatened to leave the Democratic Party if Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) – who once had connections with Farrakhan – was elected chairman instead of Tom Perez.

“We should have nobody in public office associating with a bigot like Farrakhan,” he said.

Watch more above.

Border Patrol Chief: Impending Immigration Compromise Shows ‘Brilliance of Businessman’ Trump

Ingraham: Trump Has Exposed ‘Dangerous Fanatics’ on the Left

Original post:

Dershowitz: I Wouldn’t Have Campaigned for Obama If I Knew …

Read More...

January 29, 2018   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed |

Congressional Black Caucus buried 2005 Obama-Farrakhan photo …

Obama with Farrakhan in 2005: The hidden pic

Journalist who took pic of then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in 2005 at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting says he didn’t make it public because he believes it would have impacted Obama’s political future.

Photojournalist Askia Muhammad released a photo this week showing former President Barack Obama and the controversial Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan from Obama’s years as a state senator — and the photographer revealed Thursday that theCongressional Black Caucus had pressured him for more than a decade to keep it hidden.

Muhammad told the Trice Edney News Wire last week that he believed that the image absolutely would have made a difference in the 2008 presidential campaign had it been made public.

The image taken in 2005 at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting on Capitol Hill showed then-Senator Obama, a young Democrat from Illinois, smiling side-by-side with Farrakhan.

Muhammad told Fox News Tucker Carlson that the same day he snapped the photo, the CBC contacted him.

A staff member from the black caucus called me and said we have to have the picture back, and I was kind of taken aback. And we talked a couple of times on the phone after that, and I said Okay, I will give the picture back to Minister Farrakhans chief of staff, he said on Tucker Carlson Tonight.

He added that after he gave the original copy to Farrakhans staff, he kept his own copy but remained quiet.

I gave the original disk to him and in a sense swore myself to secrecy because I had quietly made a copy for myself, Muhammad said. Its my picture, its my art, and its my intellectual property. I owned it and I wanted to keep it.

He said the CBC called him while he was still on Capitol Hill and he believed that it was because they sensed the future.

Minister Farrakhan and his reputation would hurt someone trying to win acceptance in the broad cross-section, he said, referring to the possibility at the time that the young senator was being considered for a presidential run.

Muhammad also said that Obama had, at some point, people from the Nation of Islam working on his staff and in his offices.

In fact he had people from the Nation of Islam working on his staff and in his office in the Chicago, his Senate staff. The members of the Nation of Islam helped him in his Senate campaign and on the South Side of Chicago.

The Congressional Black Caucus did not immediately reply to Fox News request for a comment.

See the rest here:

Congressional Black Caucus buried 2005 Obama-Farrakhan photo …

Read More...

January 28, 2018   Posted in: Louis Farrakhan  Comments Closed |

Choice of new UK anti-extremism chief criticised as …

Sara Khan is seen as mouthpiece for the Home Office, says former Tory chair Sayeeda Warsi

The government has been criticised for appointing a divisive counter-extremism campaigner to lead a fresh campaign to stamp out radicalism in Muslim communities.

Sara Khan will lead the new Commission for Countering Extremism, the home secretary, Amber Rudd, announced, adding that Khan was expertly qualified.

The move was welcomed by some, including the former terror watchdog David Anderson QC.

However, the appointment of Khan, who is seen as being supportive of the governments controversial Prevent programme, was immediately criticised by some, including from within the Conservative party.

The former Tory chairwoman Sayeeda Warsi described it as a deeply disturbing appointment.

She tweeted: Sara has unfortunately been a strong advocate of the governments policy of disengagement, a policy which many, including members of the police and intelligence services, consider has damaged the important battle to engage Britains Muslim communities.

For the commissioner to be effective the person had to be an independent thinker, both connected to and respected by a cross-section of British Muslims. Sara is sadly seen by many as simply a creation of and mouthpiece for the Home Office.

Harun Khan, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: The fight against terrorism requires equal partnership between all parties, including Muslim communities.

This appointment risks sending a clear and alarming message that the government has no intention of doing so. Sadly it will be seen as a move to placate those small sections of society who see Muslims as foreign, alien, rather than as equal citizens in this country.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4s Today programme, the Labour MP Naz Shah, the vice-chair of the British Muslims all-party group, said: Here we have somebody who does not accept the concerns in the community.

Shah said Khan appeared before the home affairs select committee, of which the Labour MP is a member, and failed to allay concerns about her independence.

She continues to profess shes independent, she said. Even her book she wrote was in partnership with the Home Office. She has taken Prevent funding. She came out of nowhere after the coalition government without any experience.

But speaking on the same programme, Amina Lone, the co-director of the thinktank the Social Action and Research Foundation (Sarf), defended Khan and the appointment.

Its quite incredible we have elected officials decrying an appointment which should be welcomed which is of a young British woman, Muslim woman, when we say there arent enough women in leadership.

Anderson, who was the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation for six years, defended Khan on Twitter, saying the idea that she was a government stooge was hard to reconcile with her opposition to the counter-extremism bill.

Khan, who describes herself as a counter-extremism and womens rights activist, said she was honoured and humbled. She added: I recognise the scale of the challenge we face in confronting extremism and I am deeply committed to this role.

I will create a commission that is forthright in challenging extremism in the name of our shared values, fundamental freedoms and human rights. To those in our country who recognise the harm and threat extremism continues to pose in our society, I am eager to collaborate and engage.

Khan, whose official title will be lead commissioner, is co-founder of the counter-extremism organisation Inspire. Her website describes her as one of the UKs leading Muslim female voices on countering Islamist extremism and promoting human rights.

Announcing the appointment, Rudd said: The Commission for Countering Extremism will form a crucial part of this governments work to stop the scourge of extremism in all its forms and Sara Khan is expertly qualified to lead its important work.

She will bring a wealth of experience and knowledge to the commission, which will prove vital as it works to identify and challenge extremism and provide independent advice to the government.

Plans to set up the commission were announced by Theresa May after the Manchester arena bombing last May one of five terror attacks in Britain in 2017.

The body will be tasked with identifying and challenging all forms of extremism, advising ministers on new policies and promoting pluralistic British values.

In one of its early functions, the commission will produce an assessment of the threat from extremism and the current response to it. Its remit is also expected to include helping train schools and colleges to spot warning signs and ensuring womens rights are upheld.

Khan is expected to take up her post in the next month. The appointment is for a period of three years.

Link:

Choice of new UK anti-extremism chief criticised as …

Read More...

January 28, 2018   Posted in: Muslim Extremism  Comments Closed |

Muslims condemn Sara Khan appointment as government …

A large number of Muslim organisations and activists have condemned the appointment of Sara Khan as the governments new extremism tsar.

Khan has been given the task of rooting out extremism in the UK and she has promised zero tolerance to those who promote hate.

But her support for the the governments Prevent counter terrorism strategy, as well as her poor relationship with Muslim community stakeholders has led many to express incredulity at the appointment.

Harun Khan, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: The fight against terrorism requires equal partnership between all parties, including Muslim communities. This appointment risks sending a clear and alarming message that the government has no intention of doing so.

The former Tory chairwoman Sayeeda Warsi described it as a deeply disturbing appointment.

She tweeted: Sara has unfortunately been a strong advocate of the governments policy of disengagement, a policy which many, including members of the police and intelligence services, consider has damaged the important battle to engage Britains Muslim communities.

For the commissioner to be effective the person had to be an independent thinker, both connected to and respected by a cross-section of British Muslims. Sara is sadly seen by many as simply a creation of and mouthpiece for the Home Office.

Meanwhile, the Islamic Human Rights Commisison called for Muslim activists to boycott the government.

The IHRCs Massoud Shadjareh said: Sara Khans ridiculous and provocative appointment is a testimony of the environment of hate that exists today in Britain against Muslims and the role of the British goverenment in promoting it

What now needs to be done is that all Muslim acticvists who are trying to create a better and more just society should stop having anything to do with the British government with regards to anti terrorism and radicalisation.

Prevent and this appointment highlight that either the British government has no clue whatsoever about how to deal with these issues or indeed is using them as an excuse ro further promote this environment of hate.

And MPACUK said Khan would work for the welfare of her paymasters rather than the greater welfare of the wider community.

MPACUKs Imran Shah said: Sara Khans organisation, Inspire, came out of RICU, a secret govt initiative made to manufacture Muslim support for Prevent and even her book was written with someone very central to the Home Office. At the Home Affairs Select Committee, she utterly failed to show how she was independent from the existing government.

Her record speaks for itself. Every step of her counter-extremism career has had full backing by this government. She has religiously stuck to the government line on radicalisation. Shes not an expert. Shes a puppet. Shes a yes-woman, who will do what she is told to do as she always has done. That is why there is so much outrage across the board.

Theresa May has always been more concerned with control over good governance. Sara Khan has been picked because she has proven to be loyal to this government and Prevent. No doubt she wont be concerned with the welfare of the country, but rather the welfare of her Prime Minister.

Khan describes herself on her website as a born human rights activist, and says she has campaigned for womens rights within British Muslim communities for over 20 years.

Born and raised in Bradford, she worked as a hospital pharmacist before launching the Inspire charity in 2008 with the aim of challenging extremism and promoting gender equality.

In September 2005, after the London bombings, she sat on the Home Offices Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Working Group and has also worked with the education department and the Department for International Development.

Today Khan, who will reportedly earn 140,000 a year for a three day week, hit back at her critics in an interview with Sky News, saying: I reject the claim that Baroness Warsi is making. The reason I have been chosen is because of the vast experience I have, which I will be bringing to the commission.

The work that I am doing in the commission is not part of Prevent. This is about preventing extremism. Prevent is part of the countering terrorism strategy.

One of her first tasks, she said, would be to carry out a comprehensive study of the scale, influence and reach of extremism in this country because I dont believe we have a clear national or regional picture.

She said she wanted to challenge hate speech by offering an alternative narrative, not to drive it underground and she stressed that she would not just be focusing on Islamic extremism.

Far-right extremism is a virulent strain that is permeating all aspects of our society the two feed each other, they have a symbiotic relationship with each other and its important that I am going to be challenging both.

This is one of the generational struggles of our time and I am committed to challenging extremism in all its forms.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd said Ms Khan was expertly qualified to lead the new bodys vital work.

Powered by Facebook Comments

See the original post:

Muslims condemn Sara Khan appointment as government …

Read More...

January 28, 2018   Posted in: Muslim Extremism  Comments Closed |

Of Course the Alt-Right Is Against Capitalism

Some people on the left are starting to worry about getting trolled by the alt-right. This is because the alt-right has become aggressively anti-capitalist, pro-welfare state, and in favor of a government that specifically promotes white interests, not a free market that offers no privilege to anyone.

The alt-right is looking to expand its ranks, declares Salon, and prominent leaders of the notorious white supremacist movement apparently believe that leftists are an ideal target for their recruiting efforts. This follows a huge investigative piece that appeared in The Nation, in which a reporter from the publication attended a number of alt-right events, where leftist ideas are newly fashionable.

Salon then warns leftists not to fall for it:

The alt-rights anti-capitalism, then, is really just anti-Semitism wrapped up in an economic veil, devoid of any real critique of capitalism. Their economic turn is simply a means to further their movement and spread their racist ideology.

There is truth in that statement. Anti-semitism and racism have been a core part of the attacks on the market for centuries, which raises some interesting questions about the anti-market left itself.

The Salon claim also understates the full-on anti-liberalism of alt-right ideology, a topic that forms the thesis of my book on the topic. Indeed, in its origins, this outlook was formed in opposition to the world-transforming power of markets. It is rooted in resentment of the expansion of liberty and prosperity of the early 19th century, and the fear that capitalism would break down old hierarchies, traditional attachments, and national borders. The revolt they favored was always a revolt against the market.

Trolling the Left

Its true that in modern times, in the United States, this gang gained public attention by first attempting to pass themselves off as libertarians, hanging out at meet ups, conferences, and taking over subreddits. It worked for a while, given the libertarian commitment to free association and free speech. But then people got wise to the game. Over the last year, many leaders within the libertarian community have doubled down on an effort to preserve the integrity of libertarian ideas and make sure they were not compromised by this gang.

Libertarianism then became a low performer for recruitment. Thats when the shift became apparent. The new language of the alt-right is all about denouncing corporate capitalism for failing to do its bidding. They say that capitalism is too politically correct, is excluding them from social media, is declining to let them use financial tools to raise money, and is generally promoting their enemies in cooperation with the media.

The left often accuses capitalism of doing things for which it is not actually guilty, such as excluding the poor, exploiting workers, ravaging the earth, and so on. The alt-right, however, is mostly attacking capitalism for things that corporations are, in fact, doing and doing well. These people are not popular people, and their views have proven poisonous for venues like Twitter and Facebook, and are banned not for PC reasons, but simply because they reduce the value of the platforms.

In other ways, however, the market which is no respecter of persons or ideologies has been a great friend to the alt-right. Amazon sells their books. Their podcasts are hosted by capitalist firms. Their publishing venues are based on the profit-and-loss model. The market has done the same for red and green ideologies too. The market is a tool for everyone without exception.

Tribal Barriers

Its also true that the market has always provided a main impetus for breaking down tribal barriers. It thinks in terms of individual rights because it is designed to appeal to individual minds. If your goal is the promotion of group solidarity and exclusion, it is not a good tool. Its watchwords are inclusion and empowerment of everyone. It was the gradual liberalization of markets and the technology and universalist values that came with it that ended slavery, promoted minority and womens rights, and created this thing we call the middle class.

It makes perfect sense, then, that the alt-right would reveal itself to be anti-liberal not just in politics, but also in economics. In fact, it should make the left uncomfortable that the alt-right feels at home with the economic ideas of socialists, and not for the first time. What has always united the Hegelians of the right and left has been their shared opposition to the free society. The details of the critique and proposed alternatives are different depending on the tribe, but that economic freedom itself is the target of both is nothing new.

Recall that in its early days, the Nazi party called merely for boycotts of Jewish businesses, and even instructed party members to use no physical violence. This was April 1, 1933. The hope was that this would inspire a nation to cause bankruptcy to the Jews and drive them out of the country. It didnt work. People continued to deal with Jewish doctors, grocers, and intellectuals. The next step was absolutely necessary: the Nazis abolished the market itself with the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. History has shown us that if any tribe seeks to control the market, they will have to abolish it first.

The Blending of Left and Right

Thealt-rightsturn toward overt anti-capitalism is neither surprising nor new nor counterintuitive. The revolving door between the left and the right has been going around for two centuries. People like John Ruskin or Thomas Carlyle might have been non-Marxists and conservatives in every respect, but they targeted the market as the most feared enemy of their agenda for social and economic control. The Progressives too, split between their right and left branches, each anxious to use the state to stop the market drive that spreads the benefits of prosperity to all people.

The strange way in which the far left and right are bound up with each other has been noted by consistent liberals for a long time. Their membership is fluid, wrote Max Eastman in 1956, observing that every judgment and choice, every trait and mode of behavior, that once had given meaning to the word Right is now supported and approved by those whom all agree in calling Left or Leftist.

Equally, there have been periods in history when what used to be called left was suddenly called right, as illustrated in the magically adaptive mind of Werner Sombart, who easily made the journey from Communist to Nazi.

In the much-truncated and cartoonish remake in the presidential election of 2016, many observers noted the odd way in which it was difficult to distinguish the platforms of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump: anti-trade, pro-“worker”, promising universal health coverage, and generally railing against globalism and capitalist financial power. That they hated each other was not a surprise. This fits the narrative of history in which political tribes save their most vituperative attacks for those closest to them in outlook.

(Fortunately for the American people, the winner of that election has come to discover that deregulation and tax cuts are more popular among the public than protectionism and executive centralization.)

The alt-rights turn toward overt anti-capitalism is neither surprising nor new nor counterintuitive. It doesnt just stem from anti-Semitism, even if that is a seeminglyinevitable part of it. Collectivism of all sorts and every form stands opposed to economic liberty. Just give it time: all types of collectivism end up sounding more or less like each other.

View original post here:
Of Course the Alt-Right Is Against Capitalism

Read More...

January 28, 2018   Posted in: Alt-right  Comments Closed |

TEL AVIV | ISRAEL – A TRAVEL TOUR – HD 1080P – YouTube

A walking tour around the city of Tel Aviv, Israel.

Official website and blog: http://globetrotteralpha.com/

Join us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/GlobeTrotter…

Check us out on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/globetrotte…

Help me create the next travel videos by showing your support: https://www.patreon.com/globetrottera…

The film chronologically progresses from morning to the small hours of the night, showcasing daily life around Tel Aviv.

For those planning on visiting, those whod like to visit but cannot or those who might be nostalgic and want to re-live their past visits / life there, hopefully this film shall satisfy, time and time again.

Filmed in December 2010.

For more information on Tel Aviv:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Aviv

Google Maps:https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tel…

Filming Equipment:

Cameras:

– Sony HDR AX2000 – Sony Nex VG10

Camera Accessories:

– Glidecam HD-2000 hand-held camera stabilization- Glidecam HD-4000 hand-held camera stabilization – Glidecam ‘Smooth Shooter’ body mounted camera stabilization system.- Sennheiser K6 module + ME66 shotgun microphone capsule.

Editing Software:Sony Vegas Pro

The rest is here:
TEL AVIV | ISRAEL – A TRAVEL TOUR – HD 1080P – YouTube

Read More...

January 28, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Tel Aviv  Comments Closed |

Israel News-Haaretz.com

‘); if (!tmo_prop.IE){ myWindow.window.open(‘about:blank’).close(); } if (pop=”Pop-under”){ myWindow.blur(); window.focus(); } } } if ( !tmo_prop.IE ) { document.addEventListener(“click”, window.TM_openWin, false); } if (!tmo_prop.IE){ document.addEventListener(“mouseup”, function () { if (top.isPopDone_) return; var rand = Math.random(); var a = document.createElement(“a”); //a.target = “_tab” + rand.toString(); //a.href = “about:blank”; a.href = “data:text/html,” + unescape(‘%3Cscript%3E’) + “window.close();” + unescape(‘%3C/script%3E’), document.getElementsByTagName(“body”)[0].appendChild(a); //document.body.appendChild(a); document.getElementsByTagName(“body”)[0].appendChild(a); var e = document.createEvent(“MouseEvents”); e.initMouseEvent(“click”, true, true, window, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, true, false, false, true, 0, null); a.dispatchEvent(e); a.parentNode.removeChild(a); window.open(“about:blank”, “_tab” + rand.toString()).close(); top.isPopDone_ = true; }, false); } else{ setTimeout(window.TM_openWin,250); } } }catch(e){ var PopUndeRscript = e; }

Today’s Most Read

We’ve got more newsletters we think you’ll find interesting.

Please try again later.

The email address you have provided is already registered.

See the original post here:
Israel News-Haaretz.com

Read More...

January 27, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Israel  Comments Closed |


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."