+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wherever Muslims go things generally change for the worst.
HUGH FITZGERALD
Samuel Hayek’s Message Will Remain, Hanging in the Air
Haunting those Jews who refused to listen.
When Samuel Hayek, the head of the Jewish National Fund in the U.K., gave an interview to the Jewish News in December, he said that within ten years, the situation of British Jewry might become intolerable because of the increase in the Muslim population. These are his exact words:
“The process is that maybe in 10 years, maybe less, who knows, Jews will not be able to live in the UK. I don’t think anybody can stop it.” ”It” refers to that burgeoning Muslim presence.
All hell then broke loose. Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis denounced him, and 46 members of the Jewish Board of Deputies called for Hayek to be fired. “Chief Rabbi condemns JNF UK chair Samuel Hayek’s ‘no future for Jews’ claim,” by Lee Harpin, Jewish News, January 7, 2022:
In denouncing Samuel Hayek for expressing alarm about the Jewish future in the U.K., Mirvis also praised the support of the Muslim community, alongside that of “countless non-Jewish partners” in the fight against the “scourge of antisemitism” which he said sadly “continues to be an appalling blight upon British society.”
Mirvis claims that everything is copacetic for British Jews, “a vibrant, confident, and contented community,” but at the same time, he admits that “the scourge of antisemitism continues to be an appalling blight upon British society.” So which is it? The “scourge” is there, but at the same time, there is nothing to worry about? And would the Chief Rabbi care to tell us where he thinks that “appalling blight” of antisemitism is coming from? Lager louts, is it, or possibly aging admirers of Oswald Mosley? C’mon, Chief Rabbi, admit that the current antisemitism in the U.K. is coming almost entirely from Muslims who have taken to heart the many antisemitic passages to be found in the Qur’an, which I included in my post yesterday.
Where is that “support of the Muslim community” for the Jews? The support offered to Jews by London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan, though welcome, hardly constitutes the “support of the Muslim community.” When Muslims have attacked Jews physically, or ridden in convoys of cars through the Jewish neighborhoods of St. John’s Wood and Golders Green, yelling bloodcurdling antisemitic threats through megaphones to terrify Jews, where was that “support of the Muslim community”?
The Chief Rabbi – one of JNF UK’s honorary patrons alongside other senior political figures including former Labour prime ministers Sir Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – is the most high-profile figure yet to condemn comments made by Hayek in an interview with Jewish News last month.
Asked to clarify a claim that “Jews have no future in England”, which the charity chief made to the Jewish News, Hayek sparked widespread anger when he said that as a result of Muslim immigration “maybe in 10 years, maybe less” Jews would no longer be able to live in the UK.
I disagree with Hayek’s bleak forecast about the future of Jews in England. Jews will be able to live, I think, in the U.K. for many decades to come. But they will do so in an atmosphere that will be increasingly fraught and insecure. What Hayek ought to have said is something like this:
“As with Jews in the rest of Europe, especially in France and Germany, British Jews find themselves more insecure, ore subject to physical assaults and verbal venom on social media, because of the growing Muslim population in their midst. We have seen a 50% increase of antisemitic attacks in our country in just the past year, and the perpetrators have not been neo-Nazis, as some like to assume but rather, Muslims. This truth cannot be denied, and no one is helped by Pollyannish remarks that ignore that reality.”
Responding to Hayek’s remarks, the Chief Rabbi told Jewish News: “It is entirely wrong to suggest the future of the British Jewish community is in question as a result of demographic change in this country.” He’s whistling in the dark.
When there is so much evidence of a steep rise in antisemitic attacks all over Western Europe, when the number of such attacks in the U.K has increased by more than 50% in the last year, when the attackers are almost always Muslims, it may be discomfiting to hear the truth, but why is it “entirely wrong” to connect the future of the British Jewish community” to “demographic change” in the country, that is, to the steady increase in the numbers of Muslims in the population?
“There is no doubt that the scourge of antisemitism continues to be an appalling blight upon British society, but recent years have demonstrated that the Jewish community can rely on the support of countless non-Jewish partners in tackling anti-Jewish hatred, including from within the Muslim community.”
He [Mirvis] added: “It is possible to be realistic about the challenges of contemporary antisemitism in the UK while also believing that we are blessed to live in an overwhelmingly welcoming nation, as one of the most vibrant, confident and contented Jewish communities in the world.”
Chief Rabbi Mirvis’s intervention came after more than 46 elected Board of Deputies representatives signed a letter demanding that trustees of the Jewish National Fund UK charity back calls for chairman Samuel Hayek to resign over his “Islamophobic” comments.
The open letter – signed by deputies and those with under-35 observer status on the Board from across the Jewish religious spectrum, including three United Synagogue representatives – calls for the 11 trustees to take “decisive action” over the JNF UK chair’s inflammatory comments.
It states: “Samuel Hayek must resign, and his Islamophobic comments must be condemned explicitly by you as his fellow trustees.
“Until such a time that this happens, we will advise our synagogues and organisations to withdraw cooperation with JNF UK and the programs it funds and supports. We will also advise members of our synagogues to ensure their children do not take part in programmes run or funded by JNF UK.”
What a fantastic, hysterical reaction to Samuel Hayek’s sober remarks, which identified a real problem facing British Jewry, even if his timeline was a bit too grim, and needed to be lengthened. Instead of taking his remarks as a point of departure for the candid discussion of the effect of an inexorably increasing Muslim population on British Jewry, everyone lined up to denounce him as the bearer of outrageous — because very unwelcome — tidings. Denunciation followed denunciation. Everyone is calling for Hayek to be fired for his “inflammatory comments,” his “bigoted remark,” his “racism,” his “Islamophobia.” No one wants to consider that he may just have a point.
The letter [signed by those 46 members of the Board of Deputies], sent to JNF UK trustees on Tuesday, states: “It is chilling that Hayek echoes Great Replacement Theory – an ideology used historically against Jewish communities – that ‘the white Christian majority is shrinking… to a degree where there is a point it cannot protect itself anymore’.”
Hayek says nothing about, nor does he “echo,” the “Great Replacement Theory.” He points out that Muslims have been growing in number in the U.K., but does not say that they will “replace” the white Christians. He says only that this increasing Muslim presence will make life considerably more difficult for Jews, and that at some point Jews in the U.K. will find the situation has become intolerable. Is that false, or is that true? Had he stopped there, many would agree. But when Hayek added that within “ten years, or perhaps less,” life for Jews in the U.K. could become “intolerable,” that struck many as much too grim, and Hayek opened himself up to criticism on that point alone — but not on the thrust of his melancholy message.
The letter [from the 46 members of the Board of Deputies] signed by Masoreti, Reform Judaism, Liberal Judaism and Habonim Dror, UJS and Yachad representatives, adds: “These bigoted remarks have no place in our community. If we have come to expect zero-tolerance of antisemitism, we must show zero- tolerance of racism and Islamophobia.”…
Every version and sect of Judaism in the U.K. appears to have consigned Hayek to the outer darkness. He is accused repeatedly of “Islamophobia,” of “racism,” of uttering “bigoted remarks.”What did he do? He said there is a problem with Islam. Jews in Germany say they have a problem with Muslims who attack them on the streets. Jews in France say they have a problem with Muslims who have been not only attacking, but murdering Jews – a dozen in the last few years – solely for being Jews. The celebrated French philosopher and writer Alain Finkielkraut noted in 2018 that “we [French Jews] should not leave,” he said, “but maybe for our children or grandchildren there will be no choice.” How does that differ, except as to expected time of arrival, from the prediction of Samuel Hayek? Does Chief Rabbi Mirvis think that Alain Finkielkraut is “bigoted,” a “racist,” an “Islamophobe”?
No doubt the pressure will force Samuel Hayek to resign. It’s called shooting the messenger. But his message will remain, hanging in the air, to haunt those Jews who refused to listen, but will eventually be forced within a few years, as things worsen, to recognize the bleak truth of what Hayek, ahead of his time, had predicted.
Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis will not allow himself to think that Samuel Hayek just might have a point. His method of dealing with this bearer of bad tidings is to clap his hands over his ears and let others mouth the scurrilities that he hopes will shut Hayek up: “Islamophobe,” “bigot,” and “racist.” He reminds one of Dicken’s Mr. Podsnap, who had a similar way of dealing with disagreeables:
“Mr Podsnap was well to do, and stood very high in Mr Podsnap’s opinion. Beginning with a good inheritance, he had married a good inheritance, and had thriven exceedingly in the Marine Insurance way, and was quite satisfied. He never could make out why everybody was not quite satisfied, and he felt conscious that he set a brilliant social example in being particularly well satisfied with most things, and, above all other things, with himself.
“Thus happily acquainted with his own merit and importance, Mr Podsnap settled that whatever he put behind him he put out of existence. There was a dignified conclusiveness–not to add a grand convenience–in this way of getting rid of disagreeables which had done much towards establishing Mr Podsnap in his lofty place in Mr Podsnap’s satisfaction. ‘I don’t want to know about it; I don’t choose to discuss it; I don’t admit it!’ Mr Podsnap had even acquired a peculiar flourish of his right arm in often clearing the world of its most difficult problems, by sweeping them behind him (and consequently sheer away) with those words and a flushed face. For they affronted him.”
Samuel Hayek has uttered disagreeables about Muslims and the future of British Jewry, and they have “affronted” Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, who has reacted just like Podsnap: “I don’t want to know about it; I don’t choose to discuss it; I don’t admit it!”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From Hoover Daily (edited.)
| How Do You Lose $2.7 Billion? Form A State Agency With No Accountability. |
by Lee Ohanian via California on Your MindEver heard of the state’s Debt Limit Allocation Committee? I hadn’t until I read a state audit that found this committee squandered roughly $2.7 billion in bond funds that were intended to build housing. Yes, one of the state’s organizations responsible for allocating funding for affordable housing can’t even get the money out the door for its intended purpose. +++ Negotiating With A Liar (Putin's Dog Is A Cat)by Paul R. Gregory via The Hill
At the beginning of hostilities in Ukraine's Crimea and Donbas regions in the spring of 2014, German Chancellor Angela Merkel met with Russia's Vladimir Putin to discuss the situation. She came away shocked, stating that Putin was living in “an alternate reality.”
+++
No Biden reboot coming from president who thinks he’s ‘outperformed’ Joe Biden is either seriously delusional or utterly sequestered and misled by his team Joe Biden is not about to pivot. No siree, no reboot for this president’s White House. Biden is not interested in making any course corrections because, after all, he has, by his own modest estimation, “outperformed what anybody thought would happen.” Further, the president is convinced “we have made enormous progress” and everything is “getting better.” That’s what he told the country during his recent press conference, which was an eye-opener. Turns out Joe Biden is either seriously delusional or utterly sequestered and misled by his team. Don’t take my word for it; read his own statements. Addressing his White House’s effort to “shut down” the pandemic, as he promised to do, Biden said, “Am I satisfied with the way in which we have dealt with COVID and all the things that – that go along with it? Yeah, I am satisfied. I think we’ve done remarkably well.” As to the performance of his embattled and unpopular vice president, Biden said of Kamala Harris: “I think she’s doing a good job.” Well, what could he say? When asked how his administration’s report card might appear to voters as they approach the midterm elections, Biden said it “would look pretty good.” That’s an interesting assumption, given that a new Politico/Morning Consult poll found 37% of respondents gave Biden an “F” for his first year in office, more than awarded him an “A” or “B.” A poll which, curiously, graded Biden worse that Donald Trump. For Biden voters, that’s the final ignominy. But, as Biden declared during the presser, “I don’t believe the polls.” Joe Biden thinks he has not done a good enough job explaining to people how wonderfully things are going.
The problem is, according to Biden, Americans are too dim to comprehend what a terrific job he is doing. According to him, “We’ve passed a lot of things that people don’t even understand what’s all that’s in it, understandably.” The obvious response from the president? “I have to make clear to the American people what we are for.” Joe Biden thinks he has not done a good enough job explaining to people how wonderfully things are going. His new idea is to go “out on the road a lot, making the case around the country, with my colleagues who are up for reelection and others, making the case of what we did do and what we want to do, what we need to do.” Biden is confident this approach will make Americans feel better about his presidency and save not only his approval numbers but also Democrats come November. Democrats running for office in moderate districts must be horrified, strategizing frantically how to avoid the Great Taint of the Biden White House. Will they, like Georgia voting rights activist Stacey Abrams, who skipped out on a major Biden speech recently, claim a “scheduling conflict”? They are cooked, especially with Independents defecting in droves. In a recent Economist/YouGov poll, only 6% of Independents “approved strongly” of the job Biden is doing. In addition to getting out more, Biden’s new program includes “bringing in more and more – now that I have time-… experts outside, from academia, to editorial writers, to think tanks. And I’m bringing them in, just like I did early on, bringing in presidential historians to get their perspective on what we should be doing…” He now has the luxury of this renewal because, as he says, “I’ve gotten the critical crises out of the way, in the sense of it moving – knowing exactly where we’re going.” Voters will be so relieved to know that Biden has solved our biggest problems. Even as Biden is quite comfortable with the job he is doing, he is very disappointed in his Republican colleagues, who, he says, are out to block his every initiative. More concerning, it seems, is that the president cannot figure out the GOP agenda. He challenges Republicans to outline “what are you for?” For the record, Republicans across the country are running on safe streets, stable prices, secure borders, school choice, strength overseas and getting the country back to work. Does Biden seriously not know these are the topmost issues for voters today? In fairness, there are two other reasons Biden may not want to pivot, as Bill Clinton did with great success midway through his presidency. First, he may not care whether his polls improve. His claims of planning on running again for the presidency in 2024 may be, like so much of this presidency, utter bunk. It is inconceivable that this fast-aging president will stand for reelection. Last November, the president underwent an annual physical exam, which showed him fit for office, but apparently did not take the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, which might squash widespread speculation about his mental abilities. Why not? Trump took such a test and passed with flying colors. Why didn’t Biden do the same? The obvious conclusion may be that Biden knows his mental capabilities are fading, he knows he will not run again and therefore a mid-course correction is not as important as sticking to his leftist guns. Second, the people who appear to have the most influence over this White House – Democrats like Sens. Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, and Bernie Sanders, of Vermont – are zealots. They do not care about their party; they do not care about Democrats running in swing districts. They are on a mission. Even as the political tide has begun to swing away from progressives, who have lost most marquee races in recent months to moderates, Warren and Sanders and their colleagues push the envelope. They know they have a limited amount of time to “transform” a country that does not seek to be transformed. It is unclear whether Joe Biden understands how badly his White House has been damaged; what is clear is he has no intention of changing course. +++++++++++++ I happened to be free this afternoon (January 25) and listened to a Buddy Carter question and answer program and a woman from south Georgia asked why are we trying to help protect Ukraine's border and no out own.
Later in the evening that same theme was picked up by various reporters on FOX. I seriously doubt Biden is going to lose troops over Ukraine but it does raise the legitimacy of the question and one has to ask why Milley decided it was cheaper to leave $80 billion of equipment in Afghanistan and not ship it to Ukraine and why the cost of even preparation for a troop movement is ignored.
But back to the lady's first question. Why is Biden and his mass media adorers not asking this simple question? After all Ukraine is not even a member of NATO. No one is suggesting Biden should send troops to our southern border to stop the bleeding and serious consequences from drugs, criminal behaviour and sickness much less the enormous cost of integrating illegals into our society in the hope they will vote for Democrats. Worst of all, what message are we sending to our own citizens and the world that our president is knowingly allowing/condoning/encouraging and paying for the breaking of Federal Laws. If that is not an impeaching event I don't know what is.
I guess since it is hurting Texas who cares but the entire nation is being flooded by the transshipment of these criminals for political potential votes and we sit by and passively allow this. No wonder Putin , Xi and the other assortment of dictators have little regard for our rhetoric.. It is nothing but hypocritical bluster. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment