Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Israel, Multiculturalism, and the Decline of Universal Human Rights

Michael Lumish

{Also published at Jews Down Under and Israpundit.}

kids-tshirt-no-justice-no-peace-d0012745602 The great unspoken tension within the progressive-left, today, is the ongoing ideological conflict between the dominant multicultural ideal and the declining ideal of universal human rights.

Given the racialized nature of World War II it is not the least bit surprising that American liberalism shifted from a primary concern with leveling the economic playing-field, under FDR, to what we might call "racial liberalism" as it emerged and evolved in the post-war era with the rise of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement.

It is also not the least bit surprising that the ideal of universal human rights emerged from World War II within two prominent and allied political "communities," despite the fact that it was betrayed by both. The first is the United Nations, an organization that has continually undermined human rights, as well as free speech, due to its inconvenience for a significant number of influential member states, particularly those associated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

The second political community that embraced (and betrayed) this central value is the progressive-left as it came to dominate the Democratic Party, the Labour Party in Britain, and the European Union.

The multicultural ideal confronted ideals of universal human rights (or social justice) just beneath the surface of politics-as-usual. That is, the twin pillars of progressive-left ideology rubbed against one another because they are mutually exclusive. This tension within the movement remained generally unexamined as it played itself out in recent decades, resulting in the near total triumph of multiculturalism over its pain-in-the-neck rival.

For those of you who may wonder how it is that feminists justify the burka (a symbol of Islamic oppression of women) or why so many Gay people favor the Palestinian Authority over Israel (despite the liberal incorporation of Gay lifestyles into Israeli culture) or how it is that Democrats who favor liberalism and freedom of speech also tend to increasingly despise the only country in that entire part of the world that embraces both, this is the reason.

Universal human rights are generally incompatible with multicultural notions because those notions tend to chasten ideals of social justice when they clash with the prerogatives of other cultures to behave as they will without western "imperialist" intrusion.

burkaOne cannot stand for multiculturalism, after all, if one condemns the burka or the status of women, Gay people, and all non-Muslims throughout the Arab-Muslim Middle East. To do so, in today's hyper PC universe, is to display an offensive, "racist," and unacceptable disregard for the rights of other peoples.

The victory of multiculturalism over ideals of human rights was not inevitable and as late as the 1990s western feminists still stood up for the rights of women under Taliban rule in Afghanistan, but those days are now long gone.

The current western political atmosphere, particularly under the EU and the Obama administration, is increasingly racialized as a consequence of multiculturalism in its embrace of anti-white prejudice. This is so because white people (no matter what their economic standing) are seen as the heralds and bludgeons of western imperialism, colonialism, sexism, homophobia, militarism, and racism as conjured up by professors such as Rashid Khalidi, Noam Chomsky, and the late Columbia University professor, Edward Said. 

Furthermore, those of us who come out of the progressive-left and the Democratic Party - and who still hold fast to the ideals of universal human rights - are regularly defamed as "racist" and "imperialist." If we so much as dare to criticize forms of Islamic jurisprudence that call for stoning women to death, when accused of adultery, or hanging Gay people from cranes, as they do in Iran, then we are considered among Hillary Clinton's "deplorables."

Needless to say, the people who have thrown the ideal of universal human rights directly into the garbage tend to be the same people who endlessly lambaste Israel for its alleged violation of those very same rights. Israel, of course, has a far better human rights record than any country in that part of the world and the relentlessly malicious focus on the lone, sole Jewish State is an indication of the racial dogmatism at the heart of the progressive movement when it plunges itself head-long into Arabs against Jews in the Middle East.

If we happen to be Jewish people who deplore the fact of thirteen-hundred years of Jewish persecution under the boot of Muslim imperial rule - and who are distressed by the ongoing violent threats toward the various minorities, including Jews, Christians, Yazidis, and others - we are excoriated as apologists for genocide and ethnic-cleansing in our support for Israel.

This is because much of the Left still considers Zionism to be a form of racism, as reported by UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 in 1975, before it was rescinded in 1991.

The great irony, of course, is that outside of political Islam, the progressive-left has emerged as the foremost purveyor of racism in the West, today.

Prominent western-left racism is not the old-timey variety as represented by, say, the Ku Klux Klan or Pacific Northwest skin-headed homunculi. Instead progressive-left and Democratic Party bigotry takes the form of "humanitarian racism" which condescendingly views people "of color" as small children in need of protection from white, male barbarians.

Progressive-left and Democratic Party anti-Jewish racism, by contrast, takes the form of endlessly lambasting Israel, while ignoring the far worse human rights records of countries throughout Asia, Africa and Central and South America. And it displays itself in its acceptance of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism as part of the larger progressive-left, Democratic Party coalition.

The Democratic Party price for Jewish admission is a willingness to sit across the table from anti-Semitic anti-Zionists in a spirit of political brotherhood.

This would be something akin to requiring black people to sit across the Democratic Party table from Klansmen for the purpose of defeating Republicans.

African-Americans would never, today, put up with it, yet Jewish Democrats do so on a daily basis.

Some of us, however, are regaining our self-esteem and increasingly willing to stand up and say, "NO."

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

The Clear Winner of the US Presidential Debate:

rorschach1

This week on NOTHING LEFT (Sept 27, 2016)

Michael Lumish

Michael Burd and Alan Freedman (hosts) tell us:
This week we hear from aspiring Glen Eira Councillor Ian Fayman, and then we speak with barrister Geoff Bloch on Section 18C. We also hear from David Bedein who has been following up on the Palestinian text book issue; we chat with Norman Rosenbaum on past and current events surrounding the murder of his brother in New York 25yrs ago, and of course, we hear from Isi Leibler in Jerusalem. 

Nothing_Left3 min         Editorial: Tim Costello and Hadassah Hospital

13 min         Ian Fayman, candidate for Glen Eira Council

21 min         Geoff Bloch, on Section 18C

41 min         David Bedein, on Palestinian textbooks

1 hr 04 min Norman Rosenbaum, brother of murdered Yankel in New York

1 hr 41 min Isi Leibler, Jerusalem

Monday, September 26, 2016

Raw Deal # 6: The Voldemorte Syndrome

Michael Lumish





Heya Guys, this is Michael Lumish talking with ya on the morning of Monday, September 26, and it is hot, hot, hot here in Oakland, California.

I mean, good Christ, it’s almost October for crying out loud and we have temperatures, depending upon just where you live, close to 100 degrees!

In any case, given the rise of political Islam and what seems to be a spike in Jihadi attacks in the United States, but most particularly in Europe, it is both dangerous and disconcerting that the very topic has become verboten.

This is because so many people automatically think that if you have some hard criticisms of Islamic terrorism it must mean that you are vile, irrational, hate-filled racist who despises Muslims merely because they are Muslims.

What is it that Pamela Geller says?

That they call anti-Jihadis something like, racist, Islamophobic, anti-Muslim, bigots.

It just rolls off the tongue.

Racist, Islamophobic, anti-Muslim, bigots.

I have to tell you, that is just messed up and wrong and unjust and inaccurate and does nothing but shut down the conversation, which is precisely what it is intended to do.

Anti-Jihadis have a name for this.

They call it the Voldemort Syndrome.

In the Harry Potter series the arch-villain whom everyone fears is Voldemort.

They are so terrified of Voldemort that the magical community won’t even say his name… despite the fact that they insist that he is dead.

They would say something like, “He who must not be named is dead.”

This is the way that huge numbers of westerners – and, yes, particularly on the left – refuse to think about terrorism

Refuse to think about the rise of political Islam.

And refuse to think about its significance to mass Muslim immigration into the West.

To even so much as think about such questions makes one – wait for it - a racist, Islamophobic, anti-Muslim, bigot.

This issue is not to be discussed and terrorism, all evidence to the contrary, isn’t really that big a deal… or so they would have you believe.

I mean, more people die every year in road accidents, by far, than are killed by terrorists. Right?

The thing of it is, the people who refuse to discuss the Jihad are not afraid of Jihadis. Not at all.

They’re not afraid that some maniac is gonna blow them up while waiting on line at Starbucks for a half café double tall non fat foamy mocha.

What they are afraid of, actually, is one another.

They’re afraid that their friends will think of them as a heinous racist and they, as a consequence, will lose social standing or even, quite possibly, suffer the loss of employment.

Who needs the grief?

So, people won’t discuss it, even as Obama and Hillary are preparing to go all Angela Merkel on us and open the friggin’ flood-gates.

It’s just plain dumb.

In the US we’re pretty much all of us the progeny of immigrants and students are taught to look upon 19th and early 20th century disdain for immigrants as, itself, disdainful.

And for good reason.

And for a Jew, of all people, to frown upon people fleeing from a war zone is not just unconscionable. It’s deplorable!

But the fact is, the current wave of Middle Eastern and North African Muslim immigration is not the same as the eastern and southern European wave of a century ago and more.

The Jews and the Italians and the Polish and the Ukrainians and god knows who all, not to mention the Irish and Germans before them, did not generally despise the United States and their kids and grandkids assimilated.  

Of course, there is no getting away from the fact that more than a few eastern European Jewish socialists and anarchists sometimes caused a bit of a ruckus.

My family lived in the Ukraine for who knows how many generations and I sometimes like to tell people that when they arrived in New York Harbor in the early 1920s they carried little round bombs in one hand and a copies of Das Kapital in the other.

But, thankfully, that bit of nonsense was short-lived, unlike the Jihad which has been ongoing since that Muhammad fellow started dreaming of the Archangel Gabriel like some hallucinating character in Tony Kurshner’s Angels in America.

But the point is, not only has the Jihad been ongoing since Muhammad, it continues to this very day.

Does this mean that all Muslims are Jihadis?

No. But I honestly do not care.

One thing is certain, a percentage of these migrants are from the Islamic State, if not other Jihadi groups, and Americans will die because of Obama and Clinton’s naivete or indifference.

Also, of course, let’s not forget that we are talking about people from a part of the world where rates of anti-Semitism range from the mid-70th percentile, among the most open-hearted, to the mid-90th percentile among Palestinian-Arabs.

I am not calling for a ban on Muslim immigration, but we need to make damn sure that we know who is coming into the United States.

This is no more racism than opposing Nazism was bigotry toward Germans or opposing Soviet Communism was irrational, bigoted hatred toward Russians.

Given 9/11 and Fort Hood and the Boston Marathon and the 2014 beheading in Oklahoma – most people are not even aware of this, but there was an actual Jihadi beheading in Oklahoma of all friggin’ places.

Not to mention San Bernadino, last years Draw Muhammad contest that got shot up in Texas and then, of course, God rest their souls, 49 dead people in an Orlando nightclub.

Yet, none of this seems to get through to virtually anybody in the Democratic party.

Look. I don’t care who moves into the United States so long as they are not Jihadis, are not in opposition to the Constitution of the United States, and harbor no irrational, Qur’anically-based, cosmic hatred toward Jews.

Aside from that, give us your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

The Dhimmi That Got Away

Michael Lumish

{Also published at the Elder of ZiyonJews Down Under and The Jewish Press.}


freedom1Israel is The Dhimmi That Got Away.

The fundamental basis of the never-ending Arab-Muslim aggression against the Jews of the Middle East is the Muslim religion as outlined in the Qur'an and the Hadiths.

Period. Full stop.

It is not an aggression based upon notions of social justice, as the Palestinian-Arabs, and their friends, would have you believe. In truth, Israel is a social justice Shangri-La compared to the rest of the Middle East.

The Long Arab War against the Jews of the Middle East is a religious war.

And it is within the primary sources of the Islamic faith that we find the basis of this aggression toward the loathsome Infidel, particularly toward those trouble-making Jews.

The Jewish people, however, along with a few Christians, managed to escape dhimmitude - in violation of Islamic theocratic imperatives - with the fall of the Ottoman Empire during World War I and the creation of the Jewish State of Israel after World War II.

From those days to these, the Jews of the Middle East are free and the Arabs do not like it.

When Muhammad created Islam as an imperial-supremacist religion intent on global expansion, he constituted it as the enemy of the Jewish people, the Christian people, and all other "unbelievers."

Furthermore, it is an astonishing testament to the man's will and intelligence that he damn near pulled it off. Within a mere century of The Prophet's death Muslims were already banging on Europe's door in search of conquest, slaves, and booty.

Please understand, however, that the following criticisms are not pointed at Muslims as individuals, but toward the consequences of Islamic doctrine. It is Islam as a theocratic-political ideology, with far-reaching consequences for all of us, that is under scrutiny.



The Qur'an and Muhammad's Will to Power

The Qur'an is an opaque and contradictory book, but there is no question that the spreading of Sharia, and the defeat of the Infidels and "unbelievers," is at its core. What this means, needless to say, is death or conversion for pagans and death, conversion, or dhimmitude for "People of the Book." Jews and Christians hold a higher place within the Qur'anic religious hierarchy and therefore have the honor to choose to live out their lives under the boot of Arab-Muslim imperial rule. This entails the payment of protection money (jizyah) under a system of enforced humiliation and submission to the will of Allah... which is to say, to the will of the Arab theological-political leadership.

It is not, therefore, a coincidence that Islam is famous for its bloody borders and is presently conducting a casual, ad hoc genocide of the Christians of the Middle East and much of Africa. The genocide is casual in the sense that no one, including the Pope, himself, really seems to give a damn and the Arabs conduct it in a here-and-there, sort-of piece-meal fashion.

The reason for the never-ending Arab-Muslim war against the Jewish people, therefore, has virtually nothing to do with Jewish misbehavior toward Arabs and virtually everything to do with the Qur'anic religious imperative to keep "unbelievers" under submission. Many Arabs in the Middle East want Jewish blood for the very same reason that they want Christian blood... because both are Infidel religions that absolutely refuse to bow their heads to The Sword of the Prophet.

The punishment for refusal of submission to Qur'anic law (al-Sharia) is death, sometimes via crucifixion, sometimes via head-chopping, and sometimes, as we read in Sura 5:33, by the chopping off of a hand and a foot from opposite sides of the body.
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,
The Christians of the Middle East, including of course the Egyptian Copts, are not guilty of anything other than being Christians and it is for that crime that Muslim extremists - with the approval of their friends - burn down churches in the thousands, kidnap young Christian girls for purposes of rape and / or conversion, and riot against Christians wherever they may be found.

None of his is due to Christian behavior.

The cause is the Qur'an, its insistence on Muslim supremacy, and Muhammad's will to power.


The Dhimmi That Got Away

A primary difference between Jews and Christians in that part of the world, vis-à-vis the perpetual aggression and contempt of Arab-Muslims, is the IDF. The IDF is the lone, sole reason why the Arabs have not driven the Jews "into the sea" as they once promised during a more honest period of their history.

For thirteen long centuries Arab-Muslims had their way with all non-Muslims in the Middle East. In some times and places dhimmitude was better and in some times and places dhimmitude was worse, but it was never better than the very worst of Jim Crow in the early twentieth-century American south.

In Martin Gilbert's In Ishmael's House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands, we read:
There could be no building of new synagogues or churches.  Dhimmis could not ride horses, but only donkeys; they could not use saddles, but only ride sidesaddle.  Further, they could not employ a Muslim. Jews and Christians alike had to wear special hats, cloaks and shoes to mark them out from Muslims.  They were even obliged to carry signs on their clothing or to wear types and colors of clothing that would indicate they were not Muslims, while at the same time avoid clothing that had any association with Mohammed and Islam. Most notably, green clothing was forbidden...

Other aspects of dhimmi existence were that Jews - and also Christians - were not to be given Muslim names, were not to prevent anyone from converting to Islam, and were not to be allowed tombs that were higher than those of Muslims.  Men could enter public bathhouses only when they wore a special sign around their neck distinguishing them from Muslims, while women could not bathe with Muslim women and had to use separate bathhouses instead.  Sexual relations with a Muslim woman were forbidden, as was cursing the Prophet in public - an offense punishable by death.

Under dhimmi rules as they evolved, neither Jews nor Christians could carry guns, build new places of worship or repair old ones without permission,or build any place of worship that was higher than a mosque.  A non-Muslim could not inherit anything from a Muslim.  A non-Muslim man could not marry a Muslim woman, although a Muslim man could marry a Christian or a Jewish woman.

Martin Gilbert, In Ishmael's House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2010) 32 - 33.
The Palestinian-Arab leadership, and many of their people, are aggressors who portray themselves as victims in order to advance the Islamic religious imperative of Jihad.

The Palestinian-Arabs are also the cudgel that the rest of the Arab world uses against free Israel.

Arabs outnumber Jews in the Middle East by a factor of 60 or 70 to 1. There are about six million Jews surrounded by 300 to 400 million Arabs in the Middle East. Those Arabs are not the least bit happy about Jewish sovereignty on the ancestral Jewish homeland and it is not because of Israel's record on human rights, which is far-and-away superior to their own.

Arab hatred toward Israel is for the simple reason that Islam claims the Jewish homeland as part of Dar al Islam and therefore, according to Islamic religious law, it must always and forever remain part of Dar al Islam.

However, until the Arabs manage to wrest back control of the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people it will remain, like all non-Muslim lands, part of Dar al Harb, "the House of War."

And it is for this reason that Palestinian-Arab mothers are sometimes happy to see their children commit suicide by intifada - by Jihad - in the streets of Jerusalem or Hebron. If they are fundamentalist in their Islamic faith, then they honestly believe that the violent Jihad is a religious obligation and that their dead sons will go to an eternal life of indulgence in Paradise.

Nonetheless, despite chronic and unremitting Arab-Muslim theocratic animosity toward Jews, we are the only indigenous people in the history of the planet to successfully reconstitute a national home upon ancestral land after twenty centuries of diaspora and thirteen centuries of dhimmitude.

Israel is, indeed, The Dhimmi That Got Away.

Friday, September 23, 2016

Astrology's Dark Night of the Soul

9 swords

NASA reveals 13th Zodiac sign and now your horoscope may have changed
Do you wait to make an important decision before reading your horoscope?

Have you ever turned down a date because your zodiac signs weren’t compatible? Do you have a little tattoo of your zodiac sign on your ankle?

If so, we have very bad news for you.

NASA recently revealed that there are actually 13 zodiac signs, and now everything you ever knew about your horoscope has changed.
Jeebus.

First Neil deGrasse Tyson robs us of Pluto and now this!

{The universe shifts beneath my feet.}