Outrage Follows "Jaw-Droppingly Shocking" 1986 Prince Charles Letter Blaming Mid-East Problems On "Foreign Jews"

Prince Charles has sparked media outrage following a report he wrote a letter blaming "the influx of foreign, European Jews" for aggravating the Arab-Israeli conflict and leading to general unrest in the Middle East, while also asking whether an American president would "have the courage" to take on "the Jewish lobby" to put an end to terrorism in the region.

The note, written on November 24, 1986, was found in a public archive and published Saturday by the Daily Mail. The Prince penned the letter after official visits to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar with Princess Diana.

"I now appreciate that Arabs and Jews were all a Semitic people originally,” the then 38-year-old Prince of Wales wrote in his letter, adding, that “it is the influx of foreign, European Jews (especially from Poland, they say) which has helped to cause great problems” in the Middle East. “I know there are so many complex issues, but how can there ever be an end to terrorism unless the causes are eliminated?” he questioned.

"Surely some US president has to have the courage to stand up and take on the Jewish lobby in the US? I must be naive, I suppose!” he concludes.

The Editor of the Jewish Chronicle, Stephen Pollard, described Charles’ comments “both shocking and entirely predictable.”

Both shocking and entirely predictable https://t.co/Ftm3TqvWL5

— Stephen Pollard (@stephenpollard) November 12, 2017

"To me this is the most astonishing element of the Prince’s letter. The “Jewish lobby” is one of the anti-Semitic themes that have endured for centuries. It is this myth there are these very powerful Jews who control foreign policy or the media or banks or whatever."  Pollard then told the daily mail that the letter was "jaw-droppingly shocking" and added that "[the Prince’s comments] come from the heir to the throne is unsettling, to put it mildly."

While the letter is inflammatory, there is no suggestion Charles holds anti-Semitic views according to The Mail: "He has many prominent Jewish friends and in 2013 became the first Royal to attend a chief rabbi’s inauguration ceremony. In a speech that year, he expressed concern at the apparent rise of anti-Semitism in Britain."

At the same time, he is seen as a defender of Islam, with one historian noting that no other major Western figure has as high a standing in the Muslim world. 

 

It has also been suggested he has pro-Palestinian leanings, a perception the letter appears to support.

Prince Charles is not the first one to fall in the "lobby" spotlight: among those to come under fire for using the term ‘Jewish lobby’ are General George Brown, the highest-ranking military officer in the US as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was publicly rebuked and disowned by President Gerald Ford in 1974 after claiming that a ‘Jewish lobby’ controlled Congress, according to The Daily Mail. Former Ukip leader Nigel Farage was criticised earlier this month when he referred to ‘a powerful Jewish lobby’ in the US.  In 2006, Chris Davies, former leader of the Lib Dem MEPs, was forced to resign after he used the term. Archbishop Desmond Tutu also came under fire when he used the phrase in a newspaper article in 2002.

The Prince’s reference in the letter to the influx of European Jews also caused dismay.

It is not clear if he is referring to immigration before or after the Second World War, or both. Mr Pollard said: ‘It is the absolute classic Arab explanation of the problems in the Middle East.

 

"And it is what everyone has always said the British aristocracy actually thinks – the idea that Jews were some kind of foreigners who had no real place in Israel until we decided to make it their homeland. Historically it is nonsense and it’s quite stunning when it comes from the heir to the throne.’

 

A senior Israeli diplomatic source said last night: ‘He [Charles] was travelling around the Gulf states [just before he wrote the controversial letter], which in those years were very anti-Israel. It seems he was presented with a narrative in a very convincing way.’

Earlier this month, Britain marked the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, the document that paved the way for the state of Israel, with a gala dinner in London attended by Theresa May and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

It is also not the first time Prince Charles has gotten in hot water for controversial remarks: In 2007, leaked emails between senior Clarence House staff put Charles at the centre of a row about the Royals’ attitude towards the Jewish state.

* * *

Attempting some damage control, a spokesman for Clarence House said the thoughts revealed in the 1986 letter, were actually “not The Prince’s own views.”

“The letter clearly states these were not the Prince’s own thinking on Arab-Israeli affairs, but represented the opinions of some of those he met during his visit which he was keen to interrogate,” the statement said. It added that Prince Charles "was sharing the arguments in private correspondence with a long standing friend in an attempt to improve his understanding of what he has always recognized is a deeply complex issue to which he was coming early on in his own analysis in 1986," the representative said.

"Over the years, the prince has continued his study of the complex and difficult themes he referenced here. He has built a proven track record of support for both Jewish and Arab communities around the world and has a long history of promoting interfaith dialogue and cultural understanding,"

she added.

White Supremacist Leader Mike Enoch Staging Deep State Operation in Tennessee?

originally published by Alt-right Exposed

Deep State Linked Neo-Nazi Groups Descend on Small Towns to “Vent Anger”

[Mike “Enoch” Peinovich]

The “White Lives Matter”events will be attended by a group of literal Neo-Nazi groups, including the National Socialist Movement (NSM), and Anticom, who’s members have discussed bombing federal buildings and massacring protesters.

White Supremacist organizer Mike “Enoch” Peinovich, one of the leaders of the disastrous Charlottesville rally on August 12^th, is staging events in both Shelbyville and Murfreesboro, Tennessee on Saturday, October 28^th.

The “White Lives Matter”events will be attended by a group of literal Neo-Nazi groups, including the National Socialist Movement (NSM), and Anticom, who’s members have discussed bombing federal buildings and massacring protesters.

[The National Socialist Movement -NSM]

Awkward Thanksgiving?

On August 16^th, investigator Laura Loomer tweeted that Mike Enoch’s mother, Paula Enockson Sippel, a.k.a. Paula Peinovich, is a political supporter of Hillary Clinton. Mike’s mother is a lifetime liberal activist and labor organizer, and works closely with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, who was just re-elected for a third term as head of the AFL-CIO.

Charlottesville

Since the event in Charlottesville, Mike “Enoch” Peinovich has been celebrating the death of Heather Heyer. Right after the rally, Enoch went on his “Daily Shoah” broadcast with Richard Spencer and said, referring to Heather Heyer:

“As far as the cat lady that was killed… this is the police’s fault for failure to control their own streets.”

“He added: “I don’t give a s–t about this dead cat lady. Whatever. The world is a better place. But the murderer is not the driver of the car. … He did nothing wrong. Frankly, he should get a medal. Let’s be honest. But legally he did nothing wrong.”

This weekend, Mike Enoch is staging a “White Lives Matter” demonstration in middle Tennessee with Vanguard America, the group that James Fields Jr held rank in and marched with before he drove his car into the crowd of protesters at Charlottesville.

[James Fields Jr. with his Vanguard America group]

The Neo-Nazi group “NSM”, or “National Socialist Movement” will also be marching at the event. The NSM is shunned by most white nationalists, because it has been riddled with FBI informants since it’s inception.

In 2007, the Orlando (FL) Sentinel revealed that FBI informant David Gletty organized a National Socialist Movement (NSM) rally in Orlando. Gletty had set up and run an entire unit of the NSM, informed on it’s members, and directed all of it’s operations over a two year period.

The march that David Gletty was through the streets of Parramore, a majority African-American section of Orlando. The FBI informant and his Neo-Nazi dupes staged an event that was eerily similar to Charlottesville, in that is stirred up racial tensions and triggered a “major police mobilization”.

Germany: Full Censorship Now Official

Authored by Judith Bergmann via The Gatestone Institute,

• Germany has made no secret of its desire to see its new law copied by the rest of the EU.


• When employees of social media companies are appointed as the state"s private thought police and given the power to shape the form of current political and cultural discourse by deciding who shall be allowed to speak and what to say, and who shall be shut down, free speech becomes nothing more than a fairy tale. Or is that perhaps the point?


• Perhaps fighting "Islamophobia" is now a higher priority than fighting terrorism?

A new German law introducing state censorship on social media platforms came into effect on October 1, 2017. The new law requires social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to censor their users on behalf of the German state. Social media companies are obliged to delete or block any online "criminal offenses" such as libel, slander, defamation or incitement, within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint -- regardless of whether or the content is accurate or not. Social media companies receive seven days for more complicated cases. If they fail to do so, the German government can fine them up to 50 million euros for failing to comply with the law.

This state censorship makes free speech subject to the arbitrary decisions of corporate entities that are likely to censor more than absolutely necessary, rather than risk a crushing fine. When employees of social media companies are appointed as the state"s private thought police and given the power to shape the form of current political and cultural discourse by deciding who shall be allowed to speak and what to say, and who shall be shut down, free speech becomes nothing more than a fairy tale. Or is that perhaps the point?

Meanwhile, the district court in Munich recently sentenced a German journalist, Michael Stürzenberger, to six months in jail for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a senior Nazi official in Berlin in 1941. The prosecution accused Stürzenberger of "inciting hatred towards Islam" and "denigrating Islam" by publishing the photograph. The court found Stürzenberger guilty of "disseminating the propaganda of anti-constitutional organizations". While the mutual admiration that once existed between al-Husseini and German Nazis is an undisputed historical fact, now evidently history is being rewritten by German courts. Stürzenberger has appealed the verdict.

A German court recently sentenced journalist Michael Stürzenberger (pictured) to six months in jail for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a Nazi official in Berlin, in 1941. The prosecution accused Stürzenberger of "inciting hatred towards Islam" and "denigrating Islam" by publishing the photograph. (Image Source: PI News video screenshot)

Germany has made no secret of its desire to see its new law copied by the rest of the EU, which already has a similar code of conduct for social media giants. The EU Justice Commissioner, Vera Jourova, recently said she might be willing to legislate in the future if the voluntary code of conduct does not produce the desired results. She said, however, that the voluntary code was working "relatively" well, with Facebook removing 66.5% of the material they had been notified was "hateful" between December and May this year. Twitter removed 37.4%, and YouTube took action on 66% of the notifications from users.

While purportedly concerned about online "hate speech," one EU organization, the EU Parliament, had no qualms about letting its premises be used to host a convicted Arab terrorist, Leila Khaled, from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) at a conference about "The Role of Women in the Palestinian Popular Struggle" in September. (The EU, the US, Canada, and Australia, have all designated the PFLP a terrorist organization). The conference was organized by, among others, the Spanish delegation of Izquierda Unida (United Left) as part of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left bloc in the European Parliament.

In the UK, Prime Minister Theresa May also said that she will tell internet firms to tackle extremist content:

"Industry needs to go further and faster in automating the detection and removal of terrorist content online... ultimately it is not just the terrorists themselves who we need to defeat. It is the extremist ideologies that fuel them. It is the ideologies that preach hatred, sow division and undermine our common humanity. We must be far more robust in identifying these ideologies and defeating them -- across all parts of our societies."

Prime Minister May keeps insisting that "these ideologies" are spread "across all parts of our societies" when in reality, virtually all terrorism is Islamic. Meanwhile, her own Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has refused to ban the political wing of Hezbollah. Hezbollah"s hate speech, apparently, is perfectly acceptable to the British authorities. So is that of South African Muslim cleric and hate preacher Ebrahim Bham, who was once an interpreter to the Taliban"s head legal advisor. He was allowed to enter the UK to speak in the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, a government building, at the "Palestine Expo" a large Jew-hate event in London in July. Bham is known for quoting Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels and saying that all Jews and Christians are "agents of Satan". Meanwhile, a scholar such as Robert Spencer is banned from entering the UK, supposedly on the grounds that what he reports -- accurately -- is "Islamophobic".

The British Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) also recently stated that online "hate crimes" will be prosecuted "with the same robust and proactive approach used with offline offending". The decision to treat online offenses in the same way as offline offenses is expected to increase hate crime prosecutions, already at the highest recorded level ever. Prosecutors completed 15,442 hate crime cases in 2015-16.

Jews in Britain, who have experienced a dramatic increase in anti-Semitism over the past three years, are frequently on the receiving end of hate crimes. Nevertheless, their cases constitute less than a fraction of the statistics. In 2016/17, the CPS prosecuted 14,480 hate crimes. According to the Campaign Against Antisemitism:

"we have yet to see a single year in which more than a couple of dozen anti-Semitic hate crimes were prosecuted. So far in 2017, we are aware of... 21 prosecutions, in 2016 there were 20, and in 2015 there were just 12. So serious are the failures by the CPS to take action that we have had to privately prosecute alleged anti-Semites ourselves and challenge the CPS through judicial review, the first of which we won in March. Last year only 1.9% of hate crime against Jews was prosecuted, signaling to police forces that their effort in investigating hate crimes against Jews might be wasted, and sending the strong message to anti-Semites that they need not fear the law... Each year since 2014 has been a record-breaking year for anti-Semitic crime: between 2014 and 2016, anti-Semitic crime surged by 45%".

Almost one in three British Jews have apparently considered leaving Britain due to anti-Semitism in the past two years.

British authorities seem far more concerned with "Islamophobia" than with the increase in hate crimes against Jews. In fact, the police has teamed up with Transport for London authorities to encourage people to report hate crimes during "National Hate Crime Awareness Week", which runs from October 14-21. Transport for London and the Metropolitan Police will hold more than 200 community events to "reassure communities that London"s public transport system is safe for everyone". The events are specifically targeted at Muslims; officers have visited the East London Mosque to encourage reporting hate crimes.

Last year, London mayor Sadiq Khan"s Office for Policing and Crime (Mopac) announced it was spending £1,730,726 of taxpayer money policing speech online after applying for a grant from the Home Office. Meanwhile, Khan said that he does not have the funds to monitor the 200 jihadists estimated to be in London, out of the 400 jihadists who have so far returned to the capital from Syria and Iraq. (He also implicitly admitted that he does not know the whereabouts of the jihadists who have returned). When asked by the journalist Piers Morgan why the mayor could not have them monitored, Khan answered:

"Because the Met Police budget, roughly speaking, 15 percent, 20 percent is funded by me, the mayor. The rest comes from central government. If the Met Police is being shrunk and reduced, they"ve got to prioritize and use their resources in a sensible, savvy way."

When Morgan asked what could possibly be a bigger priority than, "people coming back from a Syrian battlefield with intent to harm British citizens", Khan did not answer. Perhaps because it is hard to admit in public that fighting "Islamophobia" is now a higher priority than fighting terrorism?

YouTube's New ADL Thought Police Punish Conservatives While Giving Far-Left Extremists A Pass

YouTube recently teamed up with the ultra-liberal Anti Defamation League (ADL) for their "Trusted Flaggers Program" to determine what people should and shouldn"t be allowed to watch, as we continue the march towards a nanny state supported by the technocratic left.

Originally organized to combat anti-Semitism, the ADL - with it"s Soros-linked National director who last worked in the Obama admin, now spouts hyperbolic propaganda against conservatives - while failing to apply the same nebulous standards to the left. For example, their recent push to lump all Trump supporters in with white supremacists, while insulating progressives from far-left organizations such as the anti-Semitic black nationalist hate group New Black Panthers, and the increasingly violent Antifa.

Of late, the ADL has published hit-pieces on several conservatives, including Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec, Gavin McInnes, and Lucian Wintrich - offering little to no evidence of any actual wrongdoing aside from milquetoast "thought crimes" deemed beyond the pale by their mollycoddled staff. Shouldn"t liberal bigots Linda Sarsour, Luke Kuhn, the New Black Panthers, and the horse-stabbers of Antifa receive the same treatment for their actual advocacy and participation in violence towards those they disagree with?

And now, the liberal propagandist group has been given free reign to censor content on YouTube - such as politically incorrect University of Toronto professor Jordan B. Peterson, who found himself locked out of his YouTube account yesterday with no explanation (Peterson has since regained access).

To that end, Far Left Watch is out with a another report on more selective Orwellian bias from the ADL... 

reprinted with permission

----

On Tuesday, August 1st, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued a press release announcing that they have become a “select contributing member of YouTube’s Trusted Flagger program, created in 2012 to enable organizations to notify the platform of content that violates their community guidelines.” It goes on to say:

“The fight against terrorist use of online resources and cyberhate has become one of the most daunting challenges in modern history,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, ADL CEO. “Google has been a leader in this area from the beginning. The reality is extremists and terrorists continue to migrate to and exploit various other social media platforms. We hope that those platforms can learn from and emulate what YouTube is doing to proactively identify and remove extremist content.”

What criteria does the ADL use to define “extremism”? Their Center On Extremism (COE) provides this overview of their efforts but does not discuss the process that they use to distinguish “extremism” or “hate” from protected speech:

ADL’s Center on Extremism is the agency’s research and investigative arm, and a clearinghouse of valuable, up-to-the minute information about extremism of all types—from white supremacists to Islamic extremists.

This announcement is especially concerning considering their recent profile on the Alt-Lite and Alt-Right that lumped in several popular mainstream conservatives with actual neo-nazis and white supremacists.  As a response, many prominent conservative personalities took to Twitter and YouTube to criticize the ADL’s hypocrisy and point out how they broadly apply terms like “extremist”, “racist”, “bigot”, etc. to people who simply advocate for conservative political positions. So far, much of the focus has been on the people and organizations that the ADL has labeled as extremists. I want to instead highlight a few violent far left organization that they have not reported on.

Redneck Revolt

We recently reported on the far left militia group, Redneck Revolt. They are a self described “above ground militant formation” founded in June of 2016 that claims to have 30+ vetted branches nationwide. Since their inception, Redneck Revolt has been very busy recruiting at gun shows and community events, advocating for class war, contributing to the far left anarchist website It’s Going Down, and conducting armed anti-Trump demonstrations. But what’s most alarming are the resources they provide on their website. They promote several PDFs that endorse “armed struggle” and even offer a 36 page “Mini-Manual Of The Urban Guerrilla” (bottom right of resource page) which pictures left-wing militants using RPGs and outlines tactics for guerrilla warfare including sections on “sabotage”, “kidnapping”, “executions”, “armed propaganda”, and “terrorism”.

Has Redneck Revolt been labeled an extremist organization by the ADL? Has a lengthy profile on their members been circulated through legacy media? Should they worry their YouTube content will be removed as part of YouTube’s Trusted Flagger program? Well, according to the ADL, the answer is no.

Red Guards Austin

Red Guards Austin is an autonomous Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collective based in Austin, TX. Their website contains multiple reports on their confrontational and often armed demonstrations:

They also openly advocate for violent revolution against capitalism:

“we must seriously take up the task not only of self-defense on the personal and community level, but we must also struggle to unite all genuine antifascists behind the necessity of revolution.  Revolution means the long fight for communism and nothing less.”

I’ll ask the same questions. Has this organization been labeled an extremist hate group by the ADL? Has a lengthy profile on their members been circulated through legacy media? Should they worry their YouTube content will be removed as part of YouTube’s Trusted Flagger program? The answer again is a resounding no.

It is unclear what criteria the ADL uses to define “extremism” but considering that they include the numbers “11”, “12”, “13”, and “14”, as well as “Pepe the frog memes” in their Online Hate Symbols Database the bar appears to be incredibly low. So why are the violent far left organizations outlined in this article not mentioned by the ADL? Perhaps we should ask them. Please share this article via Twitter, Facebook, etc. and tag the ADL. Maybe they can offer some clarification.

If you have any tips on far left activities please submit them here.

Paris Mayor Condemns Black Feminist Festival Which Bans White People

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo on Sunday condemned a vivid example of reverse racism, when she called for a black feminist festival in the French capital to be banned, saying it was "prohibited to white people." The first edition of the Nyansapo Festival, due to run from July 28 to 30 at a cultural center in Paris, bills itself as "an event rooted in blackfeminism, activism, and on (a) European scale."

According to AFP, four-fifths of the festival area will be set aside as a "non-mixed" space "for black women," according to its website in French. Another space will be a "non-mixed" area "for black people" regardless of gender, while a final space would be "open to all" although as the French media explains, the English version of the site does uses the word "reserved" instead of "non-mixed."

The announcement prompted an angry response from Hidalgo, a socialist, who said on Twitter that she "firmly condemned" the organisation "of this event, "prohibited to white people"."

"I am asking for this festival to be banned," Hidalgo said, adding she also reserved the right "to prosecute the organisers for discrimination."

She wasn"t the only one: French antiracist and antisemitism organisations strongly condemned the festival. SOS Racisme described the event as "a mistake, even an abomination, because it wallows in ethnic separation, whereas anti-racism is a movement which seeks to go beyond race." LICRA, the International League against Racism and Antisemitism, said "Rosa Parks would be turning in her grave," a reference to the American civil rights icon.

Attention to the festival was first brought up by Wallerand de Saint-Just, the regional head of Marine Le Pen"s National Front party, who challenged Hidalgo on Friday to explain how the city was putting on an event "promoting a concept that is blatantly racist and anti-republican."

As for the response by the organizers of the clearly racist event, it was just as one would expect: instead of taking responsibility they blamed "fake news" and the "far right":

The cultural centre La Generale, where the event was to be hosted, and the collective Mwasi, which organised the event, said Sunday they were the "target of a disinformation campaign and of "fake news" orchestrated by the foulest far right."

"We are saddened to see certain antiracist associations letting themselves be manipulated like this," according to a statement posted on the Generale website.

Because when all else fails, and one has no arguments, what does one do? Blame "fake news" and/or the "alt-right", which at least in this case means those who point out the facts.

The Nuansapo is not the first prominent French reverse-racist event: a "decolonisation summer camp" in the northeastern French city of Reims elicited similar outrage last year, as it billed itself as a "training seminar on antiracism" reserved for victims of "institutional racism" or "racialised" minorities -- excluding by default white people.

AFP adds that police prefect Michel Delpuech said in a statement that police had not been advised about the event by Sunday evening. But, Delpuech added, the police "would ensure the rigorous compliance of the laws, values, and principles of the republic".

In a subsequent update reported by Bloomberg, Hidalgo said her "firm" discussion with organizers had yielded a satisfactory clarification: the parts of the festival held on property would be open to everyone and "non-mixed workshops will be held elsewhere, in a strictly private setting." Although even this prompted confusion: MWASI, the Afro-feminist collective sponsoring the three-day event, responded to the mayor"s latest comments by saying it hadn"t changed the festival program "an inch."

Meanwhile, last week several women attempting to stage a "burkini party" were detained in Cannes after a ban against the full-body beachwear favored by some Muslim women was upheld in a fresh decree.

Harvard To Hold Blacks-Only Graduation Ceremony As Progressives Embrace Segregation

Apparently racial segregation is now an enlightened, progressive policy...just ask the elitist administrators of Harvard University who, in their infinite wisdom, have decided to hold a "Blacks Only" graduation ceremony this spring. 

According to BET, the ceremony is intended to recognize the indisputable fact that graduating from Harvard is simply harder for black students than white students because the "outer pressures of society make the already challenging coursework even more difficult."

Getting a diploma from Harvard is one of the biggest accomplishments a person can achieve, but for some, it can come as a bigger task than for others.

Aside from studying and taking grueling tests, if you’re a minority, the outer pressures of society make the already challenging coursework even more difficult. Knowing this, Black members of the class of 2017 decided to form an individual ceremony. It’s the first of its kind at the school in recent memory and took nearly a year to plan.

The separate graduation is an effort to highlight the aforementioned struggles and resilience it takes to get through those.

Oh yeah, and it"s also supposed to build a sense of "community"...because the first step in breaking down racial barriers and building an integrated "community" is self-segregation.

“This is an opportunity to celebrate Harvard’s Black excellence and Black brilliance,” Michael Huggins, a soon-to-become Masters graduate from Harvard’s Kennedy School, told The Root. “It’s an event where we can see each other and our parents and family can see us as a collective, whole group. A community.”

But don"t worry because a graduate student from Harvard confirmed that this segregated ceremony is "not about segregation."

“This is not about segregation,” He added. “It’s about fellowship and building a community. This is a chance to reaffirm for each other that we enter the work world with a network of supporters standing with us. We are all partners.”

Recently, across America, there have been incidents of racism – both in comments and violence – at college campuses. Hopefully, the ceremony reminds people that minorities have to encounter certain challenges that others don’t.

Martin Luther King Jr. would be so proud of this day

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

We can"t wait for the day that minority students are graded on different curve, you know, because the "outer pressures of society make the already challenging coursework even more difficult" for them.

Trump Denounces Anti-Semitic Incidents As "Horrible And Painful"

Having come under pressure to address an uptick in incidents targeting Jewish institutions across the US, President Trump denounced anti-Semitism Tuesday when during a tour of the National Museum of African-American History and Culture he said that “Anti-Semitism is horrible and it’s going to stop and it has to stop.".

Trump: Anti-Semitic incidents are "horrible and painful" https://t.co/QmRTDXgq5E

— Daniella Diaz (@DaniellaMicaela) February 21, 2017

Further, the president insisted he has spoken out against anti-Semitism “whenever I get a chance.”

Trump on denouncing anti-Semitic attacks: "I do it wherever I get a chance." https://t.co/uJSL7I6CAS

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 21, 2017

The comments come one day after a wave of bomb threats caused 11 Jewish Community Centers to temporarily close. Vandals destroyed about 100 headstones at a Jewish cemetery in St. Louis, and Jewish Community Centers in several U.S. cities received a number of bomb threats that were later determined to be hoaxes. The terrorizing phone calls have targeted 54 community centers in 27 states this year alone. Federal investigators are looking into the source of the threats.  

Jewish groups have been frustrated by what they say is Trump’s lackluster response to the incidents. Last week, Trump prompted an aggressive media to question his determination to fight anti-semitism after he told a Jewish reporter, who asked him a question about the incidents by telling him to "sit down" and accusing the reporter of misleading him. The president insisted he is “the least anti-Semitic person that you"ve ever seen in your entire life.” Jonathan Greenblatt, the national director and CEO called Trump’s response “mind-boggling” and “shocking.”

"The issue of anti-Semitism is not a political one,” he wrote last week in The Washington Post. “But it is potentially lethal. With the president’s leadership, it can get better. With his neglect or instigation, it can get worse.” The White House also stirred controversy in January by releasing a statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day that didn"t mention the Nazis" focus on exterminating Jews. Top Trump officials later defended the decision. 

Following mounting criticism, Trump’s team has begun to address the problem in recent days.  Ivanka Trump on Monday called for “religious tolerance” after Jewish community centers received the phoned-in bomb threats. “Hatred and hate-motivated violence of any kind have no place in a country that was founded on the promise of individual freedom,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer told NBC News on Monday.

While the White House released a statement on Monday condemning the bomb threats, saying that "hatred and hate-motivated violence of any kind have no place in a country founded on the promise of individual freedom", some, including Hillary Clinton, pressured Trump to personally speak out against the attacks.

European Union Orders British Press Not To Report when Terrorists Are Muslims

Submitted by Yves Manou via The Gatestone Institute,

• This is the moment where hate speech laws become a greater threat to democracy and freedom of speech than hate speech itself.


• In France, Muslim terrorists are never Muslim terrorists, but "lunatics," "maniacs" and "youths".


• To attack freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not anti-hate speech; it is submission.


• By following these recommendations, the British government would place Muslim organizations in a kind of monopoly position: they would become the only source of information about themselves. It is the perfect totalitarian information order.


• Created to guard against the kind of xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda that gave rise to the Holocaust, national hate speech laws have increasingly been invoked to criminalize speech that is merely deemed insulting to one"s race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.


• It is disturbing to wonder how long the EU will strongly engage its experts and influence to cut through existing legal obstacles, in a quest to criminalize any type of criticism of Islam, and to submit to the values of jihad.

According the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) -- part of the Council of Europe -- the British press is to blame for increasing hate speech and racist violence. On October 4, 2016, the ECRI released a report dedicated only to Britain. The report said:

some traditional media, particularly tabloids... are responsible for most of the offensive, discriminatory and provocative terminology. The Sun, for instance, published an article in April 2015 entitled "Rescue boats? I"d use gunships to stop migrants", in which the columnist likened migrants to "cockroaches"...

The Sun newspaper has also published inflammatory anti-Muslim headlines, such as its front page of 23 November 2015 which read "1 in 5 Brit Muslims" sympathy for jihadis", along with a picture of a masked terrorist wielding a knife...

The ECRI report establishes a direct causal link between some tough headlines in British tabloids and the security of the Muslims in the UK. In other words, the British press is allegedly inciting readers to commit "Islamophobic" acts against Muslims.

ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fueling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety.

ECRI is basing its report on a recent study from Matthew Feldman, Professor at Teesside University. This study compiled anti-Muslim incidents before and after terrorist"s attacks.

In the seven days prior to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, where 12 people were killed, there were 12 reported (anti Muslim) incidents, but in the seven days following, there were 45. This pattern was similar in relation to the terror attacks in Sydney, in December and Copenhagen, in February.

So, according to the ECRI and scholars of Teesside University, when Muslim jihadists murder people and the press reports that killers are Muslims, the press, and not Islamists, is encouraging "Islamophobic incidents" in Britain. According to ECRI Chair Christian Ahlund, "It is no coincidence that racist violence is on the rise in the UK at the same time as we see worrying examples of intolerance and hate speech in the newspapers, online and even among politicians."

For the ECRI, the biggest problem is:

"... where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators" motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations."

The report does not explain what could be "alternative explanations." But we can find examples in French press: when a Muslim attacks a soldier and tries to take his gun, he is not an Islamist terrorist, but a "lunatic." Such attacks by "lunatics" are very common in France.

The French press downplays attacks by deciding not to name Muslim perpetrators: incriminating a "Mohamed" could, in the minds of French journalists, incite retaliations against Muslims. In another example, Muslim gangs cannot be connected to any form of violence, so they become "youths." In France, Muslim terrorists are never Muslim terrorists, but "lunatics", "maniacs" and "youths."

But that is France. In Britain, tabloids are not so polite, and they understand perfectly the intentions of the ECRI report: to ban the word "Muslim" when it is associated with "violence or terrorism."

The ECRI Report Marks a U-Turn in Free Speech

This is the moment where hate speech laws become a greater threat to democracy and freedom of speech than the hate speech itself. Prohibiting journalists from naming "Islamic terrorism," and encouraging them to hide the association of Muslims with terrorism, is an attempt to misrepresent the truth in the same way the former Soviet Union censored the truth. Taking advantage of some real racist articles in tabloids -- not many, because not many are quoted in the report -- to attack freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not anti-hate speech; it is submission.

The proof of submission lies in ECRI"s recommendations to the British government:

• "establish an independent press regulator";


• "rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards";


• "review the provisions on incitement to hatred with a view to making them more effective and usable";


• "establish a real dialogue with Muslims in order to combat Islamophobia. They should consult them on all policies which could affect Muslims";


• amending the Editor"s Code of Practice to ensure that members of groups can submit complaints as victims against biased or prejudicial reporting concerning their community"

By following these recommendations, the British government would place Muslim organizations in a kind of monopoly position: they would become the only source of information about themselves. It is the perfect totalitarian information order. If a breach of that kind would open in the future, no doubt all the lobbies would rush into the breach: political parties, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, multinationals, everyone.

The British government did not fall into the trap, and firmly rebuffed ECRI"s demands. It told the European council body:

"The Government is committed to a free and open press and does not interfere with what the press does and does not publish, as long as the press abides by the law."

In Great Britain, and in all countries of European Union, anti-hate laws already exist. Created to guard against the kind of xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda that gave rise to the Holocaust, national hate speech laws have increasingly been invoked to criminalize speech that is merely deemed insulting to one"s race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.

These laws have also been invoked often by Islamists to sue against anti-Islamist speech (cartoons of Muhammad, blasphemy against Islam, etc.) as manifestations of "racism" -- fortunately with little success. Most court cases that Islamists have initiated have failed because Islam is not a race.

Agnes Callamard, expert on human rights, writes in reference to the United Nations Charter:

"ARTICLE 19 recognises that reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression may be necessary or legitimate to prevent advocacy of hatred based on nationality, race, religion that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The organisation does not extend such legitimate restrictions to offensive and blasphemous expressions."

It is disturbing to wonder how long the EU will strongly engage its experts and influence to cut through existing legal obstacles, in a quest to criminalize any type of criticism of Islam, and to submit to the values of jihad.