Islamic Insanity in Europe > 15 y/o stabs Jew in Zurich; North African stabs 2 German girls for their purses

 

Jewish Man Stabbed In Zurich by 15 y/o Muslim

In Suspected Hate Crime

Matzav.com, March 2, 2024 (thanks to Andrew Bostom):

An Orthodox Jewish man was assaulted in what appears to be a hate crime in the Selnau district of Zurich, Switzerland, shortly after the conclusion of Shabbos.

Zurich city police disclosed that a 15-year-old attacker critically injured a 50-year-old Orthodox Jew by stabbing him.

The assailant was promptly apprehended, and law enforcement authorities have initiated an investigation into the incident.

Eyewitness accounts, as reported by the Blick news site, suggested that the assailant exhibited a callous demeanor, even laughing upon being detained. Initial reports hinted at the possibility of the attacker shouting hateful slogans such as “death to the Jews” or “death to Israel” during the assault….

“Religious Jew Stabbed by Muslim Fanatic in Zurich,” Hamodia, March 2, 2024.

Germany: Man of ‘North African appearance’

brutally stabs two teen girls during robbery, flees in Mercedes

MAR 3, 2024 8:30 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER

Why is there so much criminal activity among Muslim migrants in Europe? One reason is that the “best of peoples” (Qur’an 3:110) have no respect for the laws of the “most vile of created beings” (Qur’an 98:6). And since those beings ought, by divine command, hand over tribute payments to Muslims (cf. Qur’an 9:29), one may help oneself to their property in lieu of those payments.

Perpetrator wanted handbags – 

Two 17-year-old girls were seriously injured with a knife

translated from “Täter wollte Handtaschen – Zwei 17-jährige Mädchen mit Messer schwer verletzt,” Welt, February 28, 2024 (thanks to Medforth):

Two girls are sitting in a shelter in a remote area. Suddenly a car stops and a man demands her handbags. When they resist, he stabs them so brutally that they are seriously injured. A girl’s life is in danger. 

A highwayman stabbed and seriously injured two 17-year-old girls on a dirt road in Erkrath near Düsseldorf (North Rhine-Westphalia). One of the two victims was even critically injured, the police in Mettmann said on Monday. A murder squad has taken over the investigation.

The crime occurred on Sunday night. The two 17-year-olds were sitting in a shelter on the “Im Hochfeld” dirt road when the unknown man approached them with a knife in his hand and demanded the girls’ handbags. He was accompanied by a second man who stayed in the background.

When the girls refused to hand over their handbags, the unknown man stabbed them. The men then fled with at least one handbag in a silver-gray coupe. According to the “Rheinischer Post,” it was a Mercedes.

The victims could have called the emergency number themselves. They were treated by paramedics and taken to a hospital. The close-range search, including with a helicopter, was initially unsuccessful.

The knife attacker is said to be between 15 and 22 years old, 1.75 tall, of North African appearance and spoke German. He was wearing black sweatpants and a black striped quilted jacket.

The police are looking for witnesses. Due to the severity of the injuries, the crime was classified as an attempted homicide and a murder squad was set up at Düsseldorf police headquarters.

Not only do radicalized Muslims have no resptect for other's property, they have no respect for other's lives. Killing a non-Muslim wins you points with Mohammed.

 

 

Climate Change > Major problems found with Climate Change Data

 

Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data

'Climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century–heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,' said astrophysicist Willie Soon.

(Illustration by The Epoch Times, Getty Images, Shutterstock)

By Alex Newman | February 28, 2024   Updated: February 28, 2024   Temperature records used by climate scientists and governments to build models that then forecast dangerous manmade global warming repercussions have serious problems and even corruption in the data, multiple scientists who have published recent studies on the issue told The Epoch Times.   The Biden administration leans on its latest National Climate Assessment report as evidence that global warming is accelerating because of human activities. The document states that human emissions of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide are dangerously warming the Earth.   The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) holds the same view, and its leaders are pushing major global policy changes in response.   But scientific experts from around the world in a variety of fields are pushing back. In peer-reviewed studies, they cite a wide range of flaws with the global temperature data used to reach the dire conclusions; they say it’s time to reexamine the whole narrative.   Problems with temperature data include a lack of geographically and historically representative data, contamination of the records by heat from urban areas, and corruption of the data introduced by a process known as “homogenization.”   The flaws are so significant that they make the temperature data—and the models based on it—essentially useless or worse, three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) explained.   The experts said that when data corruption is considered, the alleged “climate crisis” supposedly caused by human activities disappears.   Instead, natural climate variability offers a much better explanation for what is being observed, they said.   Some experts told The Epoch Times that deliberate fraud appeared to be at work, while others suggested more innocent explanations.   But regardless of why the problems exist, the implications of the findings are hard to overstate.   With no climate crisis, the justification for trillions of dollars in government spending and costly changes in public policy to restrict carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions collapses, the scientists explained in a series of interviews about their research.   “For the last 35 years, the words of the IPCC have been taken to be gospel,” according to astrophysicist and CERES founder Willie Soon. Until recently, he was a researcher working with the Center for Astrophysics, Harvard & Smithsonian.   “And indeed, climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century—heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,” Mr. Soon told The Epoch Times.

Dancers working with Mothers Rise Up (a group of UK mothers protesting about climate change) prepare to hold a performance protest outside Lloyds of London in London on Feb. 26, 2024. (Carl Court/Getty Images)

“But good science demands that scientists are encouraged to question the IPCC’s dogma. The supposed purity of the global temperature record is one of the most sacred dogmas of the IPCC.”   The latest U.S. government National Climate Assessment report states: “Human activities are changing the climate.   “The evidence for warming across multiple aspects of the Earth system is incontrovertible, and the science is unequivocal that increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases are driving many observed trends and changes.”   In particular, according to the report, this is because of human activities such as burning fossil fuels for transportation, energy, and agriculture.   Looking at timescales highlights major problems with this narrative, Mr. Soon said.   “When people ask about global warming or climate change, it is essential to ask, ‘Since when?’ The data shows that it has warmed since the 1970s, but that this followed a period of cooling from the 1940s,” he said.   While it is “definitely warmer” now than in the 19th century, Mr. Soon said that temperature proxy data show the 19th century “was exceptionally cold.”   “It was the end of a period that’s known as the Little Ice Age,” he said.   Data taken from rural temperature stations, ocean measurements, weather balloons, satellite measurements, and temperature proxies such as tree rings, glaciers, and lake sediments, “show that the climate has always changed,” Mr. Soon said.   “They show that the current climate outside of cities is not unusual,” he said, adding that heat from urban areas is improperly affecting the data.   “If we exclude the urban temperature data that only represents 3 percent of the planet, then we get a very different picture of the climate.”

A meteorologist launches a weather balloon measuring the zero degree isotherm at MeteoSwiss station in Payerne, Switzerland, on Sept. 7, 2023. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)

Homogenization One issue that scientists say is corrupting the data stems from an obscure process known as “homogenization.”   According to climate scientists working with governments and the U.N., the algorithms used for homogenization are designed to correct, as much as possible, various biases that might exist in the raw temperature data.   These biases include, among others, the relocation of temperature monitoring stations, changes in technology used to gather the data, or changes in the environment surrounding a thermometer that might impact its readings.   For instance, if a temperature station was originally placed in an empty field but that field has since been paved over to become a parking lot, the record would appear to show much hotter temperatures. As such, it would make sense to try to correct the data collected.   Virtually nobody argues against the need for some homogenization to control for various factors that may contaminate temperature data.   But a closer examination of the process as it now occurs reveals major concerns, Ronan Connolly, an independent scientist at CERES, said.   “While the scientific community has become addicted to blindly using these computer programs to fix the data biases, until recently nobody has bothered to look under the hood to see if the programs work when applied to real temperature data,” he told The Epoch Times.   Since the early 2000s, various governmental and intergovernmental organizations creating global temperature records have relied on computer programs to automatically adjust the data.   Mr. Soon, Mr. Connolly, and a team of scientists around the world spent years looking at the programs to determine how they worked and whether they were reliable.   One of the scientists involved in the analysis, Peter O’Neill, has been tracking and downloading the data daily from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its Global Historical Climatology Network since 2011.   He found that each day, NOAA applies different adjustments to the data...

Continue reading the full story here>> ==================================================================

Military Madness > German AirForce caught plotting attack on Russia's Crimea Bridge

How close to Midnight is the Atomic Clock today?

Extensive conversations between high ranking members of the Bundeswher planning on an attack on the bridge from mainland Russia to Crimea, was recorded by Russia and released. This would appear to be a deliberate attack on Russia by Germany, the consequences of which are unimaginable.

My friend, Anneke de Laaf, has been way ahead of mainstream media on the story since it broke.

Anneke de Laaf

1 d  · 

“Scheisse!” 😉😁😎

MOSCOW, March 2 – RIA Novosti. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, during a visit to Italy, said that he would promptly clarify the situation with the recording of the conversation of the Bundeswehr military about the attack on the Crimean Bridge, DPA reports.

“Scholz promised prompt clarification after the Russian publication of a recording of a discussion of support for Ukraine by German Air Force officers,” says a publication on the social network X.

The Chancellor also stressed that this incident is being investigated “very carefully, intensively and quickly.”

Anneke de Laaf

Lavrov: “We have recently witnessed facts that have come to light about the confrontation between German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and the Bundeswehr, about some cunning plans of the Bundeswehr that became apparent due to the publication of an audio recording, about how carefully they are preparing an attack on the Crimean Bridge, other objects, first of all, ammunition depots, and, most importantly, how they want to deceive everyone so that they think not about them, but about the Americans and British, since they are already there. Well, this is generally a blatant self-exposure. This is “The same revelation in the military field as in the political field was the recognition of Merkel, Holland and Poroshenko that no one was going to implement the Minsk agreements,” the minister added.

The Minsk Agreements were meant to provide assurance that Ukraine would treat the Russian-speaking people of eastern Ukraine fairly. Ukraine did absolutely nothing to implement the accord but continued to bully Russian-speaking Ukrainians without apology. This is one of several reasons why Russia invaded Ukraine 2 years ago.

The raison d'être for NATO before the collapse of the Soviet Union, was to protect Europe from Soviet expansion. Soviet expansion ceased with the collapse of the USSR and so NATO was without a purpose. They very quickly jumped into the Kosovo war, but that came to an end too. 

What now for NATO? They had to recreate the fear in Europe that Russia was in expansionary mode again and therefor they needed NATO and they needed the weapons that America and a few European countries produced. For military industrial oligarchs in the USA, this was a perfect scenario. The largest military organization in the world was now their chief salesman for weapons to all of Europe. Jens Stoltenberg, salesman-in-chief, was extraordinary at his job. Europe fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Now, the world is on the brink of complete destruction and the munitions oligarchs in America are laughing all the way to the bank.

Ozzone 9-11 > Has God humbled you by bringing people like yourself around you?

 

Canadian Convulsions > Canada's Frightening 'Online Harms Act'

 

This legislation is desperately needed for the protection of children online. In 9.5 years of government, the Trudeau Liberals have done absolutely nothing for the protection of children from sexual predators. It's disappointing but not surprising that they would use this bill to gain even more control over the media than they alreay have, and they have a disturbing amount of control already. I wish that just for once, Trudeau would do something to protect children from paedophiles without political games involved.

Canada's Frightening 'Online Harms Act'

Tara MacIsaac Senior Reporter tara@epochtimes.ca

The Online Harms Act introduced this week raised many red flags for lawyers. A prime example: Someone could report you for online hate crimes they merely “fear” you might commit, and if a judge agrees the fear is reasonable, you might end up wearing an electronic bracelet for a year and living under a court-ordered curfew. If you don’t comply with the restrictions, you could be sentenced to a year in prison.

Online Harms Act Red Flags

The Liberal government tabled its Online Harms Act, Bill C-63, on Feb. 26, and lawyers and analysts have since been fervently reviewing and commenting on it.    The bill would have broad impacts on how online content, and speech in general, is handled in Canada. It has received praise, such as for its strong protections against child exploitation. But many have found its hate speech provisions especially alarming.    “The balance between protecting vulnerable people on the internet and egregiously infringing on free speech and expression is a delicate one,” said columnist Cory Morgan.   Some key points:    It targets seven harms: sexually victimizing children, bullying, inducing child to harm themselves, extremism/terrorism, inciting violence, fomenting hatred, and intimate content without consent including deep fakes.   While some are fairly objective, the concern is how the more subjective harms—such as “fomenting hatred” or “inciting violence”—are judged.    It seeks to amend the Criminal Code to:    - Increase penalties for hate crimes. For example, “advocating for genocide” could come with a lifetime sentence. “That means words alone could lead to life imprisonment,” said the Canadian Constitution Foundation in a Feb. 27 press release.   - Add the provision regarding “fear” that someone will commit a “hate propaganda offence or hate crime.”   - “Far more draconian than being arrested for something you say, is being imprisoned for something someone else is afraid you’ll say,” lawyer Marty Moore told The Epoch Times.   - Create a standalone offence for crimes “motivated by hatred.” Currently, in a murder or assault case for example, “hate motivation” is only an aggravating factor considered by a judge during sentencing. Now, it would be a standalone offence police could charge from the outset, and it’s “liable to imprisonment for life.”   It seeks to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to reinstate a “hate speech” provision that was removed about a decade ago because it caused an uproar over impacts on free speech.    It will allow a government-appointed human rights tribunal to rule on some cases of hate speech (it creates a new class of hate speech below the criminal threshold judged by the courts).   The tribunal could fine people up to $50,000 and require payment to the complainant up to $20,000. The complainant does not have to be identified in all cases—so the accused may never know who has filed the complaint.   “Findings would be based on a mere ‘balance of probabilities’ standard rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The subjectivity of defining ‘hate speech’ will lead to punishments for protected speech. The mere threat of human rights complaints will chill large amounts of protected speech,” CCF said.    “It’s pretty cheap to lay a complaint. It doesn’t cost you anything. And if it doesn’t even cost you your identity, you can just go ahead and do that to all of your political opponents,” Mr. Moore said.   It creates a Digital Safety Commission made up of three to five commissioners appointed by the government (parliamentarians would vote on who heads it). It would be largely responsible for enforcing the law, and many have said it would have far too much power.    It could send inspectors into a person’s workplace to look at documents without a warrant (entering someone’s home would still require a warrant). It could make online content inaccessible, hold hearings (sometimes out of public view), and more.    “Despite those powers, the Commission is not subject to any legal or technical rules of evidence,” said University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, in a post on his website.   “We are talking about some of the most draconian powers given to an agency that doesn’t exist and has no track record of integrity,” Mr. Moore says.    “One troubling aspect of Bill C-63 is the vast authority bestowed upon a newly established body, comprising government appointees, to interpret the law, make up new rules, enforce them, and then serve as judge, jury, and executioner,” said Canadian Civil Liberties Association director and general counsel Noa Mendelsohn Aviv.    It also creates the position of a digital safety ombudsperson to act as a guide and advocate for internet users, and a digital safety office to support the commission and the ombudsperson.   It places requirements on social media companies (such as Facebook) to flag content that they believe “foments hatred” and deal with content they have “reasonable grounds to believe … [poses] a risk of significant psychological or physical harm.”    Failure to abide by the requirements could cost the platforms 6 percent of their gross global revenue or $10 million, whichever is greater.   “This appears aimed at encouraging social media companies to censor speech that the government cannot outlaw,” CCF said.

Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada Arif Virani arrives to a cabinet meeting on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Feb. 27, 2024. (The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick)

Why It Matters: Who will decide what “hate speech” is?    Previously, the province’s attorneys general had to be consulted before a hate speech charge could be laid. A lot rested on high-level legal expertise to determine what “hate speech” is.   Under Bill C-63, police could lay those charges, said CCF lawyer Josh Dehaas in an email to The Epoch Times.   Your average Canadian can also initiate an onerous legal process for anyone he or she thinks may be guilty of hate speech—by filing a complaint to the human rights commission or by going to the courts with it.    Social media companies are required to discern what they believe is harmful, and the digital commission is too.    One of the main criticisms Opposition Leader Pierre Poilieve has leveled at the legislation is that the Liberal government could use it to define “hate speech” as whatever speech it doesn’t like   Justice Minister Arif Virani was asked to respond to this criticism in a Feb. 26 interview with Michael Serapio of PrimeTime Politics.   “We’re talking about codifying [a] pre-existing definition of hatred,” Mr. Virani told Mr. Serapio.   “Hatred has been defined in Supreme Court jurisprudence for at least the last 11 years in a decision called Whatcott, 2013, where it talks about something that arises to ‘detestation’ and ‘vilification.’ It doesn’t cover things like humiliating, offensive comments, things that are insulting.”   Mr. Dehaas noted, however, the Whatcott decision lays out a confusing definition of hate speech. That’s why the attorney general is asked to evaluate the cases, Mr. Dehaas said in a post on X.    The Whatcott case was about a man in Saskatchewan who distributed flyers about homosexuality. He spoke of “sodomy” from a Christian perspective and said it shouldn’t be presented to public school children. The manner in which he expressed these views was deemed “hate speech” by the Supreme Court of Canada.   Given the current widespread commentary on how gender and sexuality are treated in schools, Canadians may be hard-pressed to know where the line is between hate speech and voicing concerns.    “It’s difficult for me, a lawyer who works on free expression cases, to know exactly where the line is between protected speech and hate speech,” Mr. Dehaas said in a CCF release. “If this bill passes, I suspect many Canadians will now be too afraid of a human rights complaint to participate in policy debates around things like race, religion and gender.”     The bill also follows on other recent legislation giving the government regulatory powers over online content.    For example the Online Streaming Act (formerly Bill C-11) gives the government greater control over streaming services such as Netflix and Spotify. The Online News Act (formerly Bill C-18) requires tech companies to pay for Canadian news content on their platforms (and has led Meta to ban Canadian news links).      What’s ahead: The bill will make its way through Parliament, and it may be amended to address some of the concerns being raised. In the months to come, it will likely remain a focal point for debate over free expression and government control over the internet.  ===================================================================

The Terror of the Right > Melanie Phillips

 

The Biden government, like the Trudeau gov't in Canada, leans so far to the left that anyone standing up straight appears to be leaning far to the right. Therefore, those who lean to the right must all be extremists, at least in comparison to the far-left.

The terror of the right

It's so much easier to construct bogeymen than face up to murderous reality

MELANIE PHILLIPS

MAR 1, 2024

Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon

There’s a fixed belief in progressive circles that if only Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, were to be removed from office, there would be at least a sporting chance of peace in the Middle East

On Monday night, in an appearance on an NBC show, US President Joe Biden said that Israel must make peace with the Palestinians to survive. He warned that Israel’s “incredibly conservative government,” which includes the ultra-nationalist National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and others, was “going to lose support from around the world. And that is not in Israel’s interest”.

American officials repeat, like a steady drumbeat, that the reason the Israelis are so resistant to the imposition of a Palestinian state and insistent on mounting an attack against the last bastion of Hamas in Rafah, contrary to American instructions, is that Netanyahu is in hock to “right-wing extremists”.

Some believe that the Biden administration is working to replace Netanyahu with a more pliable alternative, such as war cabinet member Benny Gantz. Isn’t such interference in another sovereign state by seeking to lever out its democratically elected prime minister the kind of thing that the left routinely denounces as US “imperialism”?

It’s apparently fine, however, for the Biden administration to do this to Israel because Netanyahu is, after all, leading a “right-wing extremist” government, which seems to mean he has no basis to be in power at all.

Of course, Biden is trying to appease the virulently anti-Israel wing of the Democratic Party, which is causing him a major election-year headache.

More fundamentally still, his administration won’t permit Israel to derail US strategy for the region. Astonishingly, this involves empowering Iran, and ludicrously asserts that the solution to the Iranian war being waged against Israel and the west by using Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis as proxy terrorist armies is to impose a Palestinian state.

Biden wants Netanyahu gone because the Israeli prime minister is refusing to bend to American pressure and is standing in the way of the administration’s treacherous policy goals.

The “right-wing” meme is a potent weapon because it damns everything at which it is directed. To be “right-wing” in the circles that control western culture is to be utterly beyond the pale. Everything bad is “right-wing,” and everything “right-wing” is bad.

In Britain, even newspapers that are relatively well disposed towards Israel frame the conduct of the war as disproportionately belligerent because, well, Netanyahu runs an “extremist ultra-right” government.

In Israel, the left-wing press pounds out daily the message that absolutely everything Netanyahu is doing in this war is bad because it’s designed to save his skin and keep himself in power.

Since both the “settlers” and the “right-wing” are demonised as evil by so-called progressives, any opposition to a Palestinian state is also demonised as evil.

All this ignores a number of facts. Since the genocidal pogrom of October 7 — and with Hamas threatening to mount such atrocities over and over again until Israel is destroyed — Israelis are united as never before in opposition to a Palestinian state. They are also overwhelmingly committed to continuing with the war until Hamas no longer has the capacity to mount such attacks ever again.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the “settlers,” Ben-Gvir or Netanyahu’s desire to save his own skin. It is due to the fact that the vast majority of Israelis understand that they are fighting for their lives.

People may detest Netanyahu, but they don’t detest his conduct of the war. They may hold him ultimately to blame for the systemic mistakes behind the catastrophic failure to anticipate the October 7 attack. They may think that he should no longer be in office. They may believe that he is unprincipled, devious, hypocritical, narcissistic, power-crazed, corrupt and with a dangerous messiah complex, as he is painted by his enemies.

Yet none of that means that they think the war should be waged in any other way. None of their dismay at Netanyahu as prime minister means they believe that anyone else would or should prosecute this war any differently.

They understand that making peace depends not on Israel, as Biden insists, but on its Palestinian Arab aggressors. They understand that if Biden gets his way and Hamas survives as a military force, there will be more October 7-style atrocities. They understand that the Palestinian state Biden is threatening to impose upon Israel will deliver October 7-style atrocities on steroids.

And so the more Biden applies the thumbscrews to Israel, the more he will actually increase Israeli support for Netanyahu, who will be applauded for standing up to such an unconscionable betrayal and defending Israeli lives.

Some people dismiss the realities of Israeli opinion about the war and the “two-state solution” because all they can see is the apparently demonic figure of Netanyahu. Such people are obsessed with him. Many Israeli journalists see nothing but this hate-figure looming in front of them. He fills the entire visual space between the hater and the political horizon.

But it’s perfectly possible to dislike Netanyahu and want to see him gone from office, and yet support his determination to destroy Hamas or oppose the imposition of a Palestinian state on the grounds that there is no alternative strategy that would protect Israelis against further genocidal attack.

So why are so many unable to distinguish between the man and the measures?

For a start, it’s so much easier to blame a man who can be removed from office rather than face up to a terrifying reality that’s far harder to address, such as the Palestinian Arabs’ implacable and brainwashed hatred of the Jews.

For exactly the same reason, it’s so much easier to believe that a Palestinian state would end that enmity, rather than face up to the actual evidence of a century of murderous Palestinian rejectionism that continues without end.

There’s also another reason, a clue to which was provided by certain reactions to the October 7 pogrom both in Israel and abroad.

Among many “progressives,” the atrocities produced a profound sense of disorientation. This was because the Palestinians — people whose cause they had promoted as the acme of conscience and enlightenment — turned out to be barbaric savages.

Even worse, people the progressives had opposed and stigmatised as the “far-right” because they had regarded the Palestinians as murderous foes turned out to have been correct all along.

Worse yet again, some people on their own side actually turned on them for supporting Israel against Hamas. This was a terrible and destabilising shock. That’s because the left is governed by a herd mentality. Their views have to conform to the opinion of similarly “enlightened” people. Anyone who isn’t part of the progressive herd is “right-wing” and wrong about everything.

Moreover, since progressives believe that they embody virtue itself, right-wingers aren’t just wrong but evil. Yet the October 7 massacre revealed that the people supported by the progressives were evil.

This put progressives in a terrible bind. They couldn’t accept anything that revealed their own narrative to be so morally bankrupt.

So they exaggerated the plight of Gaza civilians in the war, for which they blamed Israel not Hamas. In response to the tsunami of antisemitism consuming the west as a result of the Palestinian cause they themselves promoted, they focused instead on the evils of “Islamophobia”. And they redoubled the attack on Netanyahu as their scapegoat.

As a result, both the Biden administration and others who demonise “the right” are supporting the insupportable. If they have their way, more Israelis will be murdered, raped, beheaded and taken hostage; there will be more Islamist intimidation, subversion and violence in Britain and America; and the west will find itself in a terrible war for its survival not against “right-wing” bogeymen, but against truly sinister enemies whom western folly has so catastrophically empowered.

=============================================================================================