Enter your keyword

Thursday, January 14, 2021

China’s Virus Supremacy

By On January 14, 2021
Biowarfare is as the ancients dumping corpses in each other’s wells, and by the Cold War, both sides had developed storehouses of biological weapons alongside their nuclear weapons.

Mutually Assured Destruction kept the world from dying from radiation poisoning or plague.

The deadly weapons of the Cold War stalemated each other so that neither side could use its weapons without unleashing massive destruction. Both the US and the USSR wargamed the use of ‘low-yield’ battlefield nuclear weapons that would allow for strategic victories without triggering a full-scale nuclear war that would kill billions of people and wreck both sides.

The consensus was that any use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield would be apocalyptic.

The People’s Republic of China may have disproven that theory using not nuclear, but biological weapons, to secure a strategic victory while avoiding any retaliation for its biowarfare attack.

Instead of escalating military tensions, the PRC made itself economically indispensable to America’s elites allowing it to carry out an attack under the cover of plausible deniability. The purpose of the first biowarfare strike wasn’t mass death. The dead were collateral damage.

Communist China’s goal is economic supremacy. Its biological attack wasn’t aimed exclusively at America, but at the high-functioning economies in open societies who are its customers and enemies. And the attack succeeded in crippling the world’s top two economies while making them more dependent on China’s economic machine.

China’s image has taken a beating around the world for unleashing the virus, lying about it, and then cashing in on the disaster, but it has come out of it with more money and power than ever. Its moves against India and in the South China Sea show it would rather be feared than loved.

Most importantly, China has learned that it can unleash chaos while profiting from the disaster.

If the current coronavirus wasn’t made in a lab, the odds are that the next one will be. The past year provided the Communist regime with a blueprint for getting rich by weakening its enemies.

Now that China knows that it can unleash a virus, lie about it, and come out stronger than ever, why wouldn’t it do it again?

China has come out of the plague year stronger than ever by spreading the virus and then selling America and Europe, battered by the pandemic, lockdowns, and turmoil, the masks and base compounds to protect itself. The biological attack allowed China to not only test us, but to test its own society, using the pandemic to centralize and solidify control over its population.

The real weapon wasn’t the virus. It was chaos.

Chaos is the weapon of the insurgency, political, international, and ideological, against an open society. It’s a familiar weapon that China is currently better built to endure than we are.

When the Soviet Union kickstarted the new age of Islamic terrorism, it was betting that the chaos of bombings and airline hijackings would take a more serious toll on open societies that care about civil rights and the judicial system. Communist regimes were much better suited to suppressing terrorism and to expecting their citizens to shrug off acts of random terror.

The Russians took quite a beating in Afghanistan and Chechnya from the virus they originally unleashed, and there have been devastating acts of terrorism, most notably in Beslan, but domestic terrorism was never much of an issue until the fall of the USSR. And despite the growing Muslim population in the territories under its control, terrorism hasn’t crippled Russia to the extent that it has Europe. Nor did it make Russia spin out of control the way it did America.

The pandemic, like terrorism and online hacking, is the latest in a series of chaos weapons directed at our society. And it may be the most effective of the chaos weapons to date.

Like terrorism, the virus shuts down travel, collapses economies, and creates uncertainty and doubt. These are conditions that weaken open societies, but strengthen closed ones. Even a sizable death toll doesn’t worry a country that has spent generations struggling to roll back an excess population. The people most likely to die in a pandemic, older men or lower class male workers, are considered a burden or surplus to the new Chinese economy anyway.

The virus, from the PRC’s perspective, helps shed the dead weight of useless people.

The Chinese perspective is horrifying but not that foreign. Did the Democrat administrations, hospital systems and health care experts that forced nursing homes in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and California, among others, to accept infected patients not know what would happen? Or did they think that “the old man’s friend” would rid them of useless people?

While the pandemic and their policies have been devastating for America, they’ve been mostly helpful to Democrats from a demographic and political perspective. The people most likely to die of the virus are older, and therefore statistically more conservative. The lockdowns broke down small businesses, another conservative demographic, and shattered health care systems, accelerating the collapse of the healthcare industry, and its takeover by the government.

Before the pandemic, Democrats were going up against a 2020 incumbent with a booming economy. By Election Day, the country had turned into a very different place than it had been.

The world’s third largest economy and the second largest party of the world’s largest economy had common interests that the pandemic fulfilled. Pandemic America is more like China, more centralized, more dependent on the Big Tech oligarchy, and more willing to set aside its basic freedoms to cope with a crisis. Everything that the Left claimed was true of 9/11, but wasn’t, has proven all too true of the COVID-19 crisis which replaced civil liberties with emergency rule.

And normalized collectivism under the rule of unelected officials bolstered by mass propaganda.

All China has to do if it wants to keep turning America into an inept socialist kleptocracy with no economy to speak of, a vast underclass, and a small corrupt overclass, is keep feeding the chaos. What the Russians tried to do in their usual clunky and showy way by utilizing the inherent chaos of the internet, the Chinese did much more smoothly and cleanly with a virus.

China wants America broken, but not destroyed. We are their best customers.

From China’s perspective, the pandemic showcased the superiority of their society, their system and their culture, while highlighting the inferiority of our own. The cheering crowds in Wuhan were meant to show the superiority of the Communist regime to that of the United States.

And to remind Chinese citizens not to long for the political and cultural freedoms of Americans.

Mutually Assured Destruction was based on the idea that neither side would be willing to flirt with destruction. But China’s biowarfare attack ‘nuked’ itself, before going on to cause destruction among the economies targeted by the Communist regime. The Communist grip on power had been based on this fundamental willingness to sacrifice millions for its goals. And while the Communist regime maintained its popularity by offering social mobility and consumer gadgets, its elite remain committed to that same genocidal maoist willingness to kill millions.

China’s biowarfare lab in Wuhan infected its own city before going on to release deadlier strains of the virus in Europe. The Wuhan release tested China’s own society and demonstrated the regime’s willingness to kill its own people in unknown numbers for the sake of the greater good.

All of this makes Communist China a deadlier enemy than the Soviet Union ever was.

The challenge of this century is how America can meet an enemy that is both seductive and ruthless, capturing our economy at the source and then killing us by the hundreds of thousands.

America has faltered in the face of the chaos weapons of terrorism and internet attacks. The biowarfare attack of 2020 proved to be even more effective at bringing down our society.

The American experiment departed from previous governing philosophies by not using government to manage chaos, but trusting to the people to do their own managing. Leftist movements met such open societies by exploiting their openness to spread chaos. The Soviet and then the Chinese Communist strategy was to boost the chaos with state sponsorship.

The stakes of the virus cold war are much the same as those of previous chaos campaigns. The fundamental question is whether we can defeat chaos assaults without turning into our enemies.

The Democrats met the pandemic, as they have met other crises in the last generation, by wishing that we were more like China. But a Democrat America would be a very poor man’s China, a nationwide California run by men and women lacking China’s nationalism, solidarity, and efficiency, while adopting its totalitarian technocracy with brutal incompetence.

America can’t beat China by becoming China. No more than it could beat Russia by becoming Russia. The only meaningful American victory is one that makes us a stronger America.

Europe and America have tried responding to the pandemic with government control. And we failed. Government is not our strength. The rule of experts is not what makes us great. The power of our people has been in individual initiative, in volunteerism, innovation, and the wisdom of crowds. That is what the Communists of every generation have feared about us.

Every time we respond to chaos with government, we become more vulnerable to chaos.

American resilience lies in our individuality. The Chinese endure collectively. We innovate individually. When the government takes away our individuality, we become third-rate Communists, outsourcing our products to China and demanding government handouts, while our government leaders party in pricey restaurants. We must become Americans again.

The only way America will survive this new coronavirus cold war is to reclaim its heritage.

We can survive and thrive on chaos, not because we are obedient collectivists like the citizens of the PRC, but because we are individuals who crowdsource solutions on our initiative.

This was a nation built on chaos. Americans not only built the first true free society, but they did it out of the refugees, exiles, and leavings of Europe. This was a nation built by individualists and nonconformists who tamed the wilderness and conquered the frontier. Government did not build this nation, as Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama falsely claimed, pioneers built it.

Government can only destroy it.

Americans can’t be better collectivists than Chinese Communists. The new Cold War can only be fought and won by a free people. Any other kind will lose.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

This article first appeared exclusively at Front Page Magazine.

Wednesday, January 13, 2021

You Can Quit Because You Took Jeffrey Epstein's Dirty Cash And Still Be The Hero of a Spielberg Movie

By On January 13, 2021
In November 2020, filming began on Oslo: an adaptation of the revisionist history Broadway play about the fake peace process between Israel and the PLO terrorist organization.

That same month, the man at the center of both the play and the movie, Terje Rød Larsen announced that he was stepping down as president and CEO of the International Peace Institute after it was revealed that he had taken a $130,000 personal loan from Jeffrey Epstein.

The International Peace Institute is closely linked to the United Nations and its honorary chair is usually the UN Secretary General. The notorious pedophile didn’t just give Larsen money, he also pumped $650,000 into the UN-linked group through his “foundations'' and the Norwegian paper that broke the story published emails showing that Larsen’s people were trying to move money from IPI back to Jeffrey Epstein. "For forms sake we should send it to Jeff, however I am sure we will get it back many fold!" Larsen appears to have written in one email.

It was 2016. The date on the original loan was in 2013. All of this took place years after the original Epstein case and his conviction. The ex-UN diplomat knew whom he was dealing with.

But the Epstein scandal didn’t stop Oslo from being produced by Steven Spielberg anyway. Or HBO from moving forward with plans to air a story about a disgraced Jeffrey Epstein associate.

Neither HBO nor Spielberg are strangers to revisionist history or anti-Israel propaganda.

Spielberg’s most infamous movie, Munich, equated the terrorists murdering Israeli civilians with the Israeli operatives trying to stop them, and was the work of screenwriter Tony Kushner who had declared that he wished Israel had never existed. HBO has been responsible for a litany of anti-Israel flicks, most recently, Our Boys, which was protested by the families of terror victims.

But Oslo is awkward because a man linked to the world’s most notorious pedophile is its hero.

Oslo, the original play, was born when Terje Rød Larsen modestly proposed it to director Bartlett Sher who is also directing the HBO movie. The director and the diplomat are good friends.

“We were part of a historic event which we have waited twenty years to see written about,” is how Larsen pitched his story.

The “historic event” has been written to death. The so-called peace agreement has killed more people than many actual wars. The real problem was that the story was fading away. And, most particularly, Larsen’s starring role in the story which is key to his fame and his career.

The premise of Oslo is that Larsen and his wife, Mona Juul, who still serves as the Deputy Permanent Representative of the Norway Mission to the United Nations, got the “warring sides” to make peace by seeing each other as human beings for the first time. And it’s nonsense.

The true story of Oslo is how Israeli lefty radicals double-crossed their own country and government, violated laws against doing exactly what they were doing, made repeated concessions to the terrorists, and then presented a hoax of a peace agreement.

Arafat, the PLO, and the entire terrorist movement built around a fake ‘Palestinian’ nationality, never made peace, never recognized Israel, and were not going to stop killing Jews.

What was the whole thing really about? Long before Epstein, Larsen had been accused of trading cash for a Nobel Peace Prize. Kåre Kristiansen, a member of the Nobel Committee, alleged that Larsen got $100,000 from the Peres Center, a project of Israel’s notoriously corrupt left-wing foreign minister, to ensure that Shimon Peres would receive a Nobel Peace Prize.

The Norwegian government had been pumping millions of kroner into the Peres Peace Center which was writing a very large check to Larsen. Meanwhile Larsen was also sitting on the board of governors of the Peres Peace Center which was giving him an award and a big check.

The diplomat claimed that he had informed the Norwegian government to which it responded, "no one in the Foreign Ministry has known about these sums of money." There were also suggestions that it would investigate the role that Mona Juul, Larsen’s wife, who was also getting the prize money, had played in getting those millions of kroner to the Peace Center.

In 2002, a conservative Israeli government bounced Larsen, who was being billed as ‘Mr. Peace’, after he falsely accused Israel of having “lost all moral authority” while it was fighting the Islamic terrorists behind the Passover Massacre of thirty people: most of them senior citizens.

Larsen’s false claims of an Israeli massacre in Jenin that was “horrifying beyond belief”, “a shameful chapter in Israel’s history”, and rife with “the stench of death” were disproven. Even the UN’s own report found that 52 died, most of them terrorists, along with 23 Israeli soldiers.

Two years later, the PLO declared ‘Mr. Peace’ persona non-grata making Larsen’s unwantedness in the region about the only thing that the Israelis and the terrorists agreed on.

A few years later, it was discovered that all of the ‘Oslo Files’, the papers related to the so-called negotiations, had vanished from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The twists and turns in the search for those documents, and why they went missing would make for a much more interesting story than the tedious nonsense of Sher directing another glamorization of Larsen.

There are plenty of interesting angles to Larsen’s story that Spielberg and Sher won’t touch, but the real truth about Larsen is that his story matters much less than the devastation of Oslo. The backchannel wasn’t a triumph of peace, but a dirty leftist political trick that wrecked Israel’s security, touched off decades of intense violence in the region, and cost thousands of lives.

Oslo is another one of the same stories that the elite tell each other. Larsen and Sher got to know each other because their daughters attended the same Manhattan private school. Larsen and J.T. Rogers, the playwright, then met up at an “Upper West Side haunt” for drinks. Oslo did well on Broadway by way of being touted by the New York Times, and will be an HBO movie.

There is one giant hole in Oslo’s story about the power of Norwegian diplomats who send their kids to Manhattan private schools to make peace. There wasn’t and isn’t any actual peace.

The only meaningful peace accords in the region that led to normalization weren’t made by Larsen, Clinton, Peres, and Rabin, but by Trump, Netanyahu, and conservative leaders. Oslo is nostalgic peace porn from the elites who failed miserably, though not at getting rich or getting a lot of people killed, calculated to obscure the real world triumphs of Trump and Netanyahu.

Jeffrey Epstein thrived in these same elitist circles and was plugged into the same networks. When Larsen, previously earning around half a million a year as head of the IPI, needed $130,000, he was there to lend it to him. And provide cash and connections for countless members of the elite, trading favors, offering introductions, and palling around with everyone.

Oslo isn’t about Israel or Islamic terrorism. Like everything the decadent cultural industry of our country makes, it’s about that incestuous world whose key players all send their kids to the same private schools, hang out at the same bars, and agree on the same basic things. They’re also very good at not seeing things like abused teenage girls or thousands of dead people.

If Bartlett Sher wanted to make a truly relevant and groundbreaking play, he would tell the story of Jeffrey Epstein’s network and of the girls he abused, some of them the same age as his daughter. But that play, unlike his theatrical smears of American foreign policy in Afghanistan and the Middle East, would never be put on, and would be quickly sunk by the New York Times.

And Spielberg, and the rest of the gang, along with HBO, wouldn’t turn it into a movie.

The real life players and their fictional counterparts in this world give each other awards and good reviews. They write about the world, but the only world they know is their own, and despite the dictum of writing what you know, they have little interest in writing about the horrors in their own world, when they can write about how their friends brought peace to the Middle East.

Oslo unintentionally explains why the professional peacemakers failed so miserably. It wasn’t only Jeffrey Epstein’s abused girls they couldn’t see, but the limits of their own corrupt hubris. They promise to solve the problems of the people who aren’t as famous and connected as they are, but fail horribly every single time, only to spin those failures as historic successes.

And if the New York Times says so, it must be true.

The true story of Oslo is a tale of corruption, death, and bloodshed. It’s about the price that ordinary people paid when the elites got their way. It’s about Jewish senior citizens murdered while celebrating Passover, schoolgirls blown up on buses, and children shot in the head. It’s a million miles away from the world of Off-Broadway plays and Manhattan private schools, skyscraper boardrooms and Brentwood mansions that spawned Oslo’s revisionist history.

The violence unleashed by Oslo’s empowered terrorists in Israel fell heaviest on working class people riding the bus to their jobs or commuting to cheaper homes in Judea and Samaria.

While Oslo films in Prague, the terrorism continues in Israel. And Jeffrey Epstein’s old associates look forward to being able to watch Oslo’s message that the elites know best while paying no attention to the terrorism, to Larsen’s scandals, or to their own corruption.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

This article first appeared exclusively at Front Page Magazine.

Tuesday, January 12, 2021

Democrats Destroyed All the Savings of Americans Three Times Over

By On January 12, 2021
Americans have $1.3 trillion in personal savings. A study published in The Economics of Disasters and Climate Change found that the coronavirus pandemic will result in between $3.2 trillion to $4.8 trillion in GDP losses. That approaches the economic output of Japan.

Much of those losses were caused by the lockdowns which could result in a 60.6% fall in GDP.

Governors, most of them Democrats, destroyed three times the household savings of the country, not just as an abstract number by piling on more debt and adding more infinite zeros to an impossible number, but by actively destroying small businesses on an unprecedented scale.

The results won’t go away when the virus does. Much of the country may never recover.

The sheer scope of the destruction may be couched in statistics, but it can be seen in empty storefronts, deserted streets, and food bank lines in cities across the country. It’s an act of economic warfare with no precedent in our history waged against a very particular group.

Small businesses were shuttered by the lockdowns and then hammered by the race riots.

Compared to those trillions, the estimated $2 billion in damage from the Black Lives Matter riots funded, endorsed, and enabled by the Democrats almost seems like nothing. Unless you’re one of the many small business owners who had their stores looted and their insurance rates rise. Or unless you’re one of the many people who need those businesses to be there on the corner.

That $2 billion is just the insurance claims. The full total of losses suffered by the stores, the toll of the brutal violence inflicted on random people and on police officers, and the dollars and cents cost to taxpayers dealing with the rioting and the aftermath is much higher.

2020 was the worst year for the American middle class in almost a century. Millions of small business owners fell off the charts. A SCORE survey found that only 34% of small business owners were turning a profit. Meanwhile Yelp claimed that 800 small businesses are closing every day. The scope of this disaster extends to their workers, their suppliers, and the buying habits of their customers. The retail sector has been gutted and the winner is Communist China.

When shoppers shifted to Amazon in greater numbers than ever, they were really buying from Chinese third party sellers who are using the Bezos platform to sell directly to Americans. The retail sector in this country was cut out of the loop leaving few jobs except those of Amazon warehouse workers and executives as Made in China didn’t just mean factories, but retail.

Big Tech’s real business model is a trojan horse offering free services in exchange for user data that helps Chinese businesses target Americans. It’s why Facebook takes in $5 billion a year in ad money from China even though it's not allowed to operate in the Communist dictatorship.

Democrats are happy to move sales away from the domestic retail sector, which is traditionally more conservative, and to Big Tech which has poured unprecedented amounts of capital into their operations while acting as a political gatekeeper for their agendas. Wiping out the middle class and turning business owners and workers into welfare cases wraps up the Dem deal.

Republicans benefit from economic improvements while Democrats benefit from economic declines. Every time in the last thirty years that a Democrat replaced a Republican in the White House was during an economic decline. Voters are more receptive to Democrat promises that Washington D.C. will take care of them when times are hard and the future appears uncertain.

Democrats claim that they hate big business. But what they really hate are the small businessmen who are the backbone of local politics. Each economic disaster is built to thin out the ranks of the local businessmen and replace them with subsidized political operatives who benefit from generous bank loans and affirmative action government contracts. And then the Democrats can hit up Chinese oligarchs for bribes in exchange for contracts on terms that will wipe out the rest of the economy and reduce America to a third world welfare state. Again.

The Democrat playbook under Bush and Trump was to cause massive economic disasters, run for office promising to take care of the little guy, and then wipe out small businesses nationwide. Now they’re doing to the retail sector what they already did to manufacturing in America. The Rust Belt wasn’t enough and they intend to add a Broken Glass Belt across the nation.

The Black Lives Matter riots of 2020 were the biggest national disaster in terms of cost in a century. But this disaster was not caused by earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes or wildfires. It wasn’t even an act of international terrorism, or the work of a few domestic radicals huddled in a basement. Instead it was funded, planned, and carried out by some of the biggest donors and organizations affiliated with the Democrats and their political nonprofits.

Think of the riots as a $2 billion version of 9/11 whose leadership isn’t hiding in a cave or in Pakistan, but is meeting openly in D.C. hotels while buying elections from coast to cost.

But that $2 billion orgy of rioting, looting, burning, maiming, and killing still pales when compared to the largest disaster of the pandemic lockdowns which cost trillions of dollars. A sum amounting to several times more than the household savings of the country was burned in that fire and will go on burning if Democrat leaders and their leftist activist base has its way.

The fact that both the lockdowns and the riots targeted small business is not a coincidence.

While the lockdowns were presented as being all about science and the riots as a populist response to racial injustice, both emerged from policy shops and think tanks. Neither were a natural response to conditions and neither came close to achieving their stated goals.

The lockdowns did not stop the surge and the race riots did nothing for black lives. Instead pandemic deaths and the deaths of black people actually increased in the wake of these measures. But the lockdowns and the riots did achieve their true goals which, among others, was to decimate the retail sector in order to reconstruct the economy and local politics.

Every disaster is followed by a recovery. And the Democrat playbook is to cause the disaster and then control the recovery. The Obama recovery was just another kind of disaster and the pandemic recovery will be as devastating in some ways as the pandemic and the riots.

The recovery is the carrot while the disaster is the stick, but both reconfigure the economy to undermine the independence of businesses and the social mobility of individuals, moving money and jobs away from conservative areas and businesses, and into leftist areas and organizations, while deepening big government’s death grip on the economy.

Even as the pandemic may be approaching its end, the next stage of the disaster is here.

Democrats may have destroyed a sum equal to the household savings of the country three times over, but that was just the warm-up act. After the crisis comes the recovery. And if you thought the crisis had hit small businesses hard, wait until you see how hard the recovery is.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

This article first appeared exclusively at Front Page Magazine.

Sunday, January 10, 2021

California’s Internet Censorship Office is Watching What You Say

By On January 10, 2021
"Report misinformation," a flier from California's Office of Election Cybersecurity blares. Social media users are urged to report "misleading" materials to the Secretary of State's office.

A government office created by California Democrats is monitoring hashtags, classifying political speech it opposes by “threat level”, taking screenshots of posts, and then storing the information indefinitely, before reporting the offending speech to social media companies for censorship.

“Election Security is our number one priority,” the Office claims. But its focus isn’t securing elections by fighting hackers or voter fraud. Instead it’s fighting “the spread of mis- and disinformation”. That’s an Orwellian way of saying that it’s fighting and censoring online speech.

“We created the CA Office of Election Cybersecurity to keep your vote safe - so you don’t have to worry! The Office is a non-partisan government arm dedicated to ensuring your vote is safe,” Secretary of State's office unconvincingly tweeted.

What sort of speech is a government office run by Democrats trying to censor? One example of political speech successfully censored by the Office of Election Cybersecurity is a tweet that “alleged thousands of 2020 ballots were tossed out".

There's nothing that reassures voters that their elections are safe like a government office spying on anyone who says that they're not, and taking immediate steps to silence them.

The Office of Election Cybersecurity isn’t securing the technology of elections, instead it’s monitoring online speech and flagging views that the government office disagrees with to be taken down by its political allies in California’s Big Tech monopolies that dominate social media.

Jenna Dresner, the senior public information officer for the Office of Election Cybersecurity, boasted that the government office maintains an internal database of online speech coded by threat level, and that its censorship calls had resulted in removals 77% of the time.

Desner is a member of the Los Angeles County Young Democrats, who had formerly worked for Rep. Karen Bass, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and other Democrat figures. The Office of Election Cybersecurity operates under Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who was chosen by Governor Newsom to replace Senator Kamala Harris. And the bill creating California’s own office of internet censorship was sponsored by two Democrats.

The internet censorship office was promoted in Padilla’s Vote Safe California campaign run by a consulting firm featuring the “mastermind” of Biden’s campaign, which developed Biden's vote-by-mail programs in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

The Office of Election Cybersecurity isn’t non-partisan and it isn’t keeping anyone’s votes safe. It’s in a position to use government power to censor questions about election fraud by its party, while working with a consulting firm involved in one of the most contentious elements of the election, whose results the office’s boss expects will put him in the United States Senate.

Corruption is one thing. Government censorship of complaints about corruption is another.

70 years after George Orwell wrote 1984, California Democrats had created their own Ministry of Information inside the government in a blatant violation of the First Amendment. The Democrat operatives running the government censorship office claim that they aren’t engaging in censorship because they’re not the ones directly censoring online speech. Yet.

“We don’t take down posts, that is not our role to play,” Dresner insisted. “We alert potential sources of misinformation to the social media companies."

That’s the difference between the government sending in jackbooted thugs to smash up a printing press and putting in a call to the editor warning him not to print a particular article.

Freedom of Speech doesn’t just refer to the former, but also to the chilling effect of the latter.

"The Bill of Rights was designed to keep agents of government and official eavesdroppers away from assemblies of people. The aim was to allow men to be free and independent and to assert their rights against government," Justice Douglas once wrote. "When an intelligence officer looks over every nonconformist's shoulder in the library... the America once extolled as the voice of liberty heard around the world no longer is cast in the image which Jefferson and Madison designed, but more in the Russian image."

That’s exactly what California Democrats have in mind by creating databases of political enemies, ranking them by “threat level”, and pressuring their allied monopolies to silence them.

Democrats had previously claimed that they were not engaging in censorship because they were pressuring Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and others to remove general categories of speech in hearings and statements. That was enough of a chilling effect and an assault on the First Amendment. But in California, an actual government office is monitoring speech, treating it as a threat, and directing social media companies to remove specific speech by individuals.

These days the former liberals who once upheld the “chilling effect” in Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, and who denounced McCarthyism, are assembling lists, and censoring their political opponents to fight the dreaded scourge of “misinformation”.

"It is a fine line between opinion and misinformation," Dresner admitted. It’s a fine line because misinformation is a political category invented by the Left to justify its censorship campaign. One of the two employees of California’s internet censorship office can’t actually explain the difference between an opinion and misinformation. That means her office is censoring opinions.

“We aren’t worried about what people are saying in the privacy of their own homes, we are worried about what they are putting out there for the world to see,” Dresner insists.

For now. How long until the same Democrat operatives who claimed that public speech poses a threat to “election security” start making the same claims about private speech? As public speech is censored and goes underground, the push will be on to monitor private speech.

If Aunt Mary saying on Facebook that thousands of ballots were thrown out is a threat to “election integrity”, won’t it still be a threat when she whispers it to Grandma Sue?

A government office telling the citizenry that it only monitors what they say in public, not what they say
in private, is not reassuring. The First Amendment was meant to protect public speech, not merely private speech. American political freedom was built on people putting their speech “out there for the world to see”. Democrats used to embrace that. Now they view it as a threat.

California's Office of Election Cybersecurity is the latest attempt by Democrats to use a fake crisis of disinformation that they invented as a pretext for political censorship. And the use of a government office to monitor, record, and track speech for censorship makes it impossible to classify internet censorship as anything but an unconstitutional assault on the Bill of Rights.

We’re no longer just dealing with legislators pressuring Facebook indirectly. A government office is now specifically tracking political speech and boasting of a 77% censorship rate.

Democrat administrations refuse to implement basic election security protocols such as voter ID, claiming it’s too onerous, and deny that election fraud is a problem, but insist that political speech is an urgent threat and must be met with relentless censorship and surveillance.

To paraphrase Yakov Smirnoff, "In America, people secure elections. In California, elections secure people."

That is how totalitarian regimes behave and it’s a threat to elections and to the Bill of Rights.

California's Office of Election Cybersecurity is one of the best possible test cases for fighting political censorship. It’s not an issue of private companies controlling their own platforms, but of a government office monitoring speech and classifying the views it wants to see eliminated.

The First Amendment threat of internet censorship is no longer something that might happen.

It’s here. Now. Republicans just have to decide if it’s a battle they’re willing to fight. But if they don’t act soon, their own speech might find its way into a government political threat database.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Thursday, January 07, 2021

Democrats Were For Riots Before They Were Against Them

By On January 07, 2021
In 2018, the media was writing up glowing stories about the hundreds of Women’s March members who were engaging in "direct action” to disrupt the Senate’s Kavanaugh hearings.

Hundreds of members from the radical leftist group had invaded the hearings and were arrested. Their travel expenses and bail for the disruptions were covered by the Women’s March. 

Radicals from the March and other leftist groups blocked hallways, shouted down Senate members, and draped protest banners from balconies. Democrats cheered them on.

When a leftist mob assailed the Supreme Court, pounding on the doors, MSNBC called it an “extraordinary moment” and praised the crowd, “besieging the Supreme Court” and “confronting senators”.

"If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them," Rep. Maxine Waters had urged earlier that year.

Later, the Democrat House member told MSNBC, "They’re going to absolutely harass them".

In 2020, Black Lives Matter rioters vandalized the Lincoln Memorial and the WW2 Memorial, along with statues of Gandhi, General Kosciuszko, and Andrew Jackson. The racist thugs marched through the city starting fires, including at a historic church, and tried to besiege the White House. Attempts by federal law enforcement to fight BLM terrorism were falsely denounced as a brutal attack on “peaceful protesters”, and as “militarism” and “fascism”.

Democrat House members took to proposing bills to protect the racist mobs from law enforcement. Meanwhile the BLM mob besieged the White House and battled Secret Service personnel, allegedly forcing the evacuation of President Trump and his family to a bunker.

This was the new normal enthusiastically supported by Democrats and the media.

A bail fund backed by Senator Kamala Harris and Biden campaign staffers focused on helping the rioters and looters get out of prison. Along with any other criminals along for the ride.

Violent protests, including those targeting public officials and legislative bodies, had been championed and normalized by Democrats and their media over the last four years. That included the harassment of officials, property destruction, and assaulting law enforcement.

Now, as the Democrats expect to take power, they suddenly decided that rioting is bad.

Before the Save America protest even began, the same Washington D.C. authorities who had championed and protected the Black Lives Matter riots, prepared for a crackdown.

“We want the military, we want troops from out of state out of Washington, D.C.,” Mayor Muriel Bowser had ranted when BLM was attacking national memorials and the White House.

“We will not allow people to incite violence, intimidate our residents or cause destruction in our city,” Bowser now insisted, demanding that the National Guard come out to stop the protests.

Unless they're Democrats, she failed to mention.

D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine had responded to the Black Lives Matter assault by condemning law enforcement. He had issued a statement falsely accusing President Trump of "responding to nonviolent demonstration with war-like tactics".

"We —the Mayor, the Council, OAG, and MPD—must commit to standing in between our community and the boot of tyranny. And we must act on this commitment. We must start by promising to defend our residents from harm while they engage in peaceful, nonviolent protest.”

"My level of anxiety is high. My preparation is even more intense than that," Racine was telling the media before the pro-Trump Save America rally now.

The double standard was obvious and blatant. The Democrats and media had cheered Black Lives Matter violent protests. They had colluded in previous invasions of Congress and the harassment of elected officials. But now they wanted a violent riot they could condemn.

And such a riot would helpfully put to bed any further questions about a rigged election.

After a massive peaceful rally by Save America protesters, who had been addressed by President Trump, a smaller group marched on Congress. The MPD however reacted very differently than it had to previous Black Lives Matter and four years of leftist rallies.

In the resulting confrontation, a number of fringe elements, Neo-Nazis, Groypers, Boogaloo Bois, a leftist-libertarian anarchist group that collaborates with Antifa and Black Lives Matter, took the opportunity to cause damage and stage photo-ops for the media. Unfortunately some legitimate conservative protesters who had entered the building were caught in the violence.

But the media stars of the confrontation were not conservatives and were anti-Trump.

One picture showed Tim ‘Baked Alaska’ Gionet, a former Black Lives Matter supporter and BuzzFeed employee, who has a history of circulating around the Groypers and aligning with the alt-right. Another appeared to show Matthew Heimbach, formerly with the National Socialist Movement, an alleged Neo-Nazi leader, who had previously argued in court that his actions were President Trump’s fault and that Trump should be held legally liable.

Much as in Charlottesville, marginal figures who were hostile to President Trump, to Republicans, and to conservatives, had taken center stage at the behest of the media.

The purpose of the entire circus was to provide a propaganda opportunity for the Left.

The outrage over the protests is a farce coming from a political movement that advocated terrorizing Republican elected officials, that aided invasions of Congress, and that supported the Black Lives Matter riots which, aside from terrorizing D.C., also wrecked much of the country.

Why is broken glass on Capitol Hill so much more precious than the broken glass that ended the dreams of store owners in Kenosha? Where was all the outrage, the tears wept for our country when Black Lives Matter thugs were prying open shops around the country, looting them, and assaulting their owners on a scale so vast it racked up $2 billion in damages?

“Please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful,” CNN’s Chris Cuomo had barked while his news network showed rioting and looting in New York.

Riots are obviously wrong. Except that Democrats and the media decided that wasn’t true.

Martin Luther King's infamous quote, "a riot is the language of the unheard", popped up in Time, USA Today, and on CNN. “Violence was critical to the success of the 1960s civil rights movement,” a Washington Post op-ed argued. The AP urged reporters to use "uprising" instead of "riot" to describe the violence, while suggesting that protests can be violent and that reporting should not focus on the "property destruction”, but instead on the “underlying grievance".

A subsidiary of one of the big 5 publishers put out a book titled, "In Defense of Looting."

You can’t normalize political violence and then expect it to be a one-sided affair. After months in which BLM mobs attacked a federal courthouse in Portland, throwing fireworks and shining lasers in the eyes of law enforcement personnel, toppled statues across the country, and injured hundreds of police officers, the Democrats and their media are suddenly outraged.

How, in the midst of all this rioting, could anyone get the idea that rioting is okay?

Laws only work when they apply to everyone. When violence is okay for some, but not for others, then a violent struggle ensues until a totalitarian monopoly on violence is achieved.

Or until we come to our senses.

There’s little question as to which side of the political spectrum has championed and mainstreamed violence for over a century. The very different fate of Kluxers and the Weathermen, trailer parks for the former and academic careers for the latter, show which side finds political violence not only acceptable, but praiseworthy. And this is no different.

Contrary to the media’s spin, Republicans have never normalized violence. And Republican political power doesn’t depend on political terror and violence. Leftist power invariably does.

The Left began a new age of political violence in 2016. It can turn it off anytime it wants to.

The problem is that it won’t, and an illiberal partisan media and accompanying cultural establishment will never dare to suggest that maybe there should be fewer riots and threats.

And that means the violence will escalate. Opportunists will seize the moment to play agent provocateurs, creating memorable images for media propagandists to justify a crackdown.

The protesters in D.C. had a legitimate grievance. And they still do. The outrage over stolen elections won’t be suppressed this way. The mass movement in D.C. is the true resistance.

There is a great deal of irony in quoting "a riot is the language of the unheard" to describe the race riots of a movement with unlimited political and corporate backing, whose message is heard all the time, but not to address a movement that is genuinely unheard. Before the fighting started, there was virtually no media coverage of President Trump’s speech and the rally.

Press conferences that mention election fraud aren’t aired. Articles and videos questioning the election are censored. That is the true voice of the unheard who are more so than ever.

Democrats and the media normalized violence when they were in the opposition and now want to normalize the suppression of political protests and speech as they expect to take power.

But media spin isn’t real life. And it’s a lot easier to break a country than to put it back together.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

This article first appeared exclusively at Front Page Magazine.

Tuesday, January 05, 2021

The 2021 Project

By On January 05, 2021
In just one month, Obama’s former acting solicitor general argued in defense of Nestle in a child slave labor case before the Supreme Court, Apple and Nike lobbied against a slave labor bill, Apple and Amazon were caught using slave labor, and Nestle, Pepsi, Unilever, and even the Girl Scouts were discovered to be using palm oil harvested by children as young as 10 years old in Indonesia.

Outsourcing American jobs saves money, not just because the cost of living in lower in Third World countries, but because the use of slave labor and child labor is routine in those parts of the world. The ‘wokest’ companies and conglomerates cheer Black Lives Matter while edging out their competitors by using Third World resources harvested by children, by slaves, and, in some cases, by child slaves.

The ‘woke’ mobs are toppling statues of Washington and Jefferson, and then taking videos of their exploits with phones whose components are produced by slave labor, before binging on snacks produced by child labor, while fiercely denouncing 18th century slavery in the 21st century.

That’s the hypocrisy of the 2021 Project.

The ‘woke’ scrutinize 18th century slavery while paying little attention to 21st century slavery. If they want to understand slavery, they don’t need to waste their time with the revisionist history of the 1619 Project, or the ravings of critical race theory, when all they have to do is check their pockets. Literally.

Clothing made in the Third World is usually made in sweatshops. Even if it’s not, the cotton for it is harvested by child and slave labor in China, which doesn’t see the need to invest in expensive farming equipment when it has a surplus of cheap labor, including its own minority population.

The 1619 Project recirculated the old false claims that slavery was America’s original sin. There was nothing original or American about slavery. And the easiest way to understand that is not just to look at slavery thousands of years ago, but to examine the evil persistence of slavery in the present day.

Slavery came to America because the country was rich in resources and poor in everything else. American trade was built on getting those resources out of the ground and then shipping them to Europe. The premise of colonization was dumping unwanted people in America, finding some even more unwanted people to do the worst of the resource harvesting, buying their resources cheaply, and then selling them finished products at high cost. The American Revolution helped put an end to that.

As America built up its manufacturing base, it had less use for a slave economy. That’s why the British backed the Confederacy in the Civil War, looking to turn back the clock to the old corrupt arrangement. Manufacturing requires more skilled workers and the cheap labor of slaves made way for immigrants. Immigrant labor wasn’t just the secret to the North beating the South economically, but militarily, with new immigrants pouring into the ranks of the North to overwhelm the South with pure manpower.

Segregation, the last vestige of the old slave system, went away in the second half of the century, and so, did the manufacturing, mining and agricultural jobs, leaving behind the descendants of slaves and poor whites in rural areas without agricultural work, and immigrants and the descendants of slaves who had moved to the cities to find factory jobs with little in the way of manufacturing jobs. The ghetto became a permanent phenomenon and upper-class academics took to writing revisionist histories of slavery while enjoying the fruits of slavery which had been conveniently relocated to the Third World.

Slavery never left. That’s why the 2021 Project is much more relevant than the 1619 Project.

The worst slave labor, now as then, involves harvesting resources. Factory work, then as now, requires a higher skilled form of cheap labor. The basic resources on which our products depend, whether it’s cotton, cocoa, or rare earth, are often still extracted and harvested using child labor and slave labor. The factory work that assembles them into phone lenses, sneakers, or snacks depends on forced labor.

The plantations and sweatshops just aren’t located in the United States.

Slavery in America was never really about race. Just as China’s Uighur forced labor or the trafficking in children in Africa aren’t really about race. It’s easier to exploit the labor of poor minorities and then to invent excuses afterward, but the labor is the goal, while the excuses are usually just the cover-up.

Today’s ‘woke’ college student benefits from the slave labor of tens of millions of people around the world without ever being aware of it and doesn’t have to engage in racial justifications to excuse it. Instead, he’s free to chant Black Lives Matter and burn down the few remaining businesses that can still provide a living for the American working class while wearing Nikes and filming with his iPhone.

The grad student destroying working class communities isn’t fighting the legacy of slavery. He is the legacy of slavery. He’s engaging in an extension of the class warfare that decimated agriculture and manufacturing in this country, and with it the working class, while laundering the profits into progressive causes, by carrying the battle against the descendants of factory workers and slaves into the remaining outposts of small business that still allow them to maintain their independence and earn a living.

Today’s plantations are the huge multinational corporations and their familiar brands that responded to the summer of race riots by shouting that Americans must repent of their racism and embrace Black Lives Matter. But urban areas are packed with failed ghettos because those same corporations turned their backs on American workers, many of them black, and went abroad looking for people who would work for less. The riots are the legacy of their abandonment of American labor and manufacturing.

Meanwhile children are working on actual plantations in Africa and Asia to supply the base ingredients for the familiar brands that pack every supermarket and superstore shelf, women are fainting in boiling sweatshops to produce the clothes, and factory workers are locked up behind barbed wire to make the tech toys which the Black Lives Matter movement and its radical antecedents use as a platform.

The 2021 Project is a much more useful reckoning with slavery than the 1619 Project. There’s no better way to understand the dilemmas that consumed our Founding Fathers than to actually try to cut the products of slave labor out of our lives. It’s easy to be self-righteous about a bunch of old dead white men in wigs. It’s a lot harder to dump Amazon, Apple, Nike, Coke, Unilever, and ten thousand other familiar brands, and try to use only products made by free adult workers being paid a fair wage.

The 1619 Project and its accompanying revisionist histories, critical race theory meltdowns, and unconscious bias scoldings have never been anything more than self-righteous cheap shots.

It’s easier to attack Thomas Jefferson’s plantation than it is to let go of your own plantation.

There is no easy answer to the economic imperatives of cheap labor today. Just as there wasn’t an easy answer centuries ago. The Founding Fathers generally agreed that slavery was an evil, but saw no way to disentangle themselves and their country from an economic purgatory, except by building up domestic industries until the country was independent enough that it could shed the curse of slavery.

America succeeded at building up its industries and rid itself of slavery. The rest of the world did not.

And the radicals who claim to be fighting for social justice destroyed the industries that had made us less dependent on slavery and, in doing so, built up slave empires like the People’s Republic of China.

The best answer to the 1619 Project is the 2021 Project.

If the leftist radicals want America to reckon with slavery, they can start with the products of slave plantations in their pockets and their fridges, with their phones, their clothes, and their portfolios.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a journalist focusing on Islam and the radical left.

Monday, January 04, 2021

The ISIS Propaganda to Kill Americans Was Coming From Near Portland

By On January 04, 2021
The year that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration's Islamic terror state travel ban, an Iraqi member of ISIS applied for American citizenship.

Hawazen Sameer Mothafar didn’t have much to worry about. Not only was he already living in the United States, but under political pressure, Iraq had been taken off the travel ban list.

And no one would have suspected Mothafar of being an ISIS terrorist. He was in a wheelchair.

When Mothafar was asked at his immigrantion interview this year whether he was involved with a terrorist organization, he must have thought it was a formality. But three months later, Mothafar was under arrest, charged with lying to a government agency, and aiding ISIS.

Mothafar not only managed to get through an immigration interview while denying any terrorist ties, but he spoke in court through an Arabic translator, suggesting a poor grasp of English.

Not only did our immigration system make an alleged ISIS member a citizen, but took an immigrant with nothing to offer this country, who doesn’t even speak the language, and who, according to his lawyer, has to be cared for by his family, and welcomed him in.

Over a thousand Iraqi refugees have been resettled in Portland, Oregon. The small city of Troutdale near Portland, once an all-American locale perfect for picture postcards, has absorbed some of the spillover. And there was nothing all-American about Mothafar.

Mothafar hadn’t come to Troutdale for the annual summerfest parade (cancelled this year because of the pandemic) or hiking past waterfalls. When he came into town under the great ‘Gateway to the Gorge’ arch that’s Troutdale’s claim to fame, he was coming for Jihad.

While Mothafar is disabled, he could still use a computer. And that’s what he did.

A senior ISIS official said that when the Islamic terrorist group needed new email and social media accounts, it was Mothafar’s job to get "new accounts when we needed new accounts as soon as possible."

But Mothafar was allegedly doing a lot more than just providing tech support for the Jihad.

Mothafar claimed that he had been an ISIS supporter since 2014 when the Islamic terror group first gained worldwide attention. Last year, he made the ba'yat pledge, an oath of allegiance to the Caliph of ISIS, who would be caught hiding out and killed by the Trump administration later that same year, binding him to full unquestioning obedience to ISIS and to its leader. Such oaths are often taken before its members make some larger commitment to the terror group.

Earlier that year, Mothafar had ambiguously told an ISIS supporter that he wouldn't use his real name because, "if published for the foundation, it could mean 4 terror."

But in 2015, Mothafar had already been working on the ISIS media operation. He initially ran ISIS chat rooms and channels, but he later began working on Al-Anfal's Jihadist propaganda.

Al-Anfal is an ISIS online media outlet, but literally means the spoils of war. That chapter of the Koran has been used as code for campaigns of extermination against non-Muslims and different Islamic sects and populations. ISIS, many of whose members and leaders had come out of the ranks of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, embraced Al-Anfal as a promise that its Jihad would echo the brutal Al-Anfal of Mohammed and of Saddam Hussein in his Anfal massacres.

The Koranic chapter of Al-Anfal contains some of the most brutal verses in the Koran, including its call for beheading,

“I will cast dread into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike off their heads,” one verse declares.

When Al-Anfal launched in the fall of 2017, Mothafar "edited, produced, published, and disseminated" the Jihadist publication with its call for the mass murder of non-Muslims.

That included Americans.

The first issue featured a chart of the best places to stab victims in the "sensitive areas of the body". “Effective Stabbing Techniques,” like the other Al-Anfal Jihadist propaganda, was coming through a publishing process that took it, not through Baghdad, but through Oregon.

The December issue featured an article titled, "How Does a Detonator Work", and a picture of a burning Statue of Liberty with the caption, "Soon in the Heart of Your Lands."

Next year, Mothafar was assembling pictures of explosives and western cities, messaging, "the images of destroyed infidel cities will be useful." Propaganda like this played a crucial role in the alarmed responses to sophisticated ISIS posters threatening attacks on America.

Some of these posters warned that the ISIS terrorists were among us. What they did not mention was that one of these terrorists was in a wheelchair and living near Portland.

And was waiting to apply for American citizenship.

Right after the hearing, Mothafar was set free on the condition that he doesn't "disseminate any information in support of any designated terrorist organization", or leave Oregon.

And so the same system that allowed Mothafar to spread his hate set him loose again.

Removing Iraq from the list of travel ban countries was made for political reasons to avoid offending its government. Iraq is the epicenter of ISIS and of Islamic terrorism. The countries with the most Muslim refugees are also generally the ones with the worst terrorist problems.

Mothafar’s immigration paperwork, mentioned in the indictment, meant filling out a form that asks prospective citizens whether they've ever been associated with the Communist Party (to my knowledge, no one has recently been indicted for lying about this), any "totalitarian party" (a dubious category), or a "terrorist organization".

There are repeated mentions of Nazi Germany: a laudable if belated move that began long after most of the Nazi war criminals were already living here, and one that is no longer relevant because few Nazi war criminals are likely to be moving to America at this late date.

There is still no mention of ISIS or any Islamic terrorist group. The immigration paperwork hardly required Mothafar to lie because its questions are dated, some to the 40s or 50s, others with their obsession with guerrillas and paramilitary units to the Latin America of the 80s.

A generation that has made Islamic terrorism into the scourge of the free world is hardly reflected in our immigration system which is still screening for Communists, Nazis, and Latin American guerrilas and paramilitary units. It's a failure that sums up our failed response to 9/11.

There is only one single mention of terrorism in the form and it doesn’t reference Islam.

The only reason Mothafar got nailed for, among other things, making false statements in his immigration form and his citizenship interview, is that the authorities were already watching him. And based on the use of FISA surveillance in his case, it’s likely that he was accidentally swept up while the United States was monitoring ISIS members operating in Iraq and Syria.

Our immigration system hasn’t adapted to dealing with Islamic terrorism. And it’s not acting in the best interests of Americans. If it were, Mothafar, in a wheelchair, cared for by his parents, would never have been a candidate for immigration or citizenship in the United States.

Americans felt sorry for Mothafar. And, as usual, they paid the price.

Now, after, no doubt, spending a small fortune on caring for Mothafar over the years, the taxpayers will spend an even larger fortune on his trial, and then, probably, on his imprisonment, at which point he’ll become a full-time burden on the taxpayers, and then on his life after prison.

None of this would have been necessary if the United States would stop taking in Muslim refugees from terror states and then putting them through an immigration process that hardly even recognizes that we’ve spent a generation fighting Islamic terrorism from abroad.

“This defendant is a legal permanent resident of the United States who abandoned the country that took him in and instead pledged allegiance to ISIS and repeatedly and diligently promoted its violent objectives” US Attorney Billy Williams declared.

Were we really expecting anything else?

In the previous decade, Samir Khan, a Pakistani, had been churning out Jihadist propaganda for Al Qaeda's Inspire magazine from Queens, New York, and then Charlotte, North Carolina. Inspire's fare included, "Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom", which may have been used by the Boston Marathon bombers.

One of his articles was titled, “I Am Proud to Be a Traitor to America.”

When he was taken out alongside Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki, the Obama administration offered a condolence call to the Khan family, and, along with Al-Awlaki, Khan became a cause celebre for lefties and libertarians, and his family who accused the United States of "assassinating" him. The Mothafar case shows how little we’ve learned since then.

They can’t take pride in being traitors to America if we don’t let them in.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Sunday, January 03, 2021

What a Stalin Quote About Rigging Elections Reveals About the 2020 Election

By On January 03, 2021
As Republicans began pushing back against the rigged election, a quote about voting from Joseph Stalin began circulating on social media. "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything," is how variations of it went.

As soon as the quote went viral, the media’s fact checkers tried to suppress it.

USA Today's fact checker rated it as false, claiming that Stalin had never said it based on speaking with two history professors at Vanderbilt University who vowed that they never heard of it. One of the professors, who serves as the Director of Undergraduate Russian and East European Studies, ranted that it was, "an example of American right-wing paranoia, active manipulation of public opinion, or outright and fascism". 

Truly a quote worthy of Stalin.

But had the ‘fact checker’ and the professors just checked Oxford's Essential Quotations, they would have found it. You don’t need a PhD or a fact checker title: just a modicum of integrity.

Politifact was more ambitious about humiliating itself by contacting the Stalin Digital Archive with the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History. The quote wouldn't be there because it comes from Stalin's former secretary, Boris Bazhanov, who fled the USSR and wrote a memoir exposing the crimes and corruption of the Soviet regime. Asking the Russian State Archive for that quote is like asking the cosa nostra to fact check a mafia informant’s recollections.

The men who were party to that conversation were the ‘Troika’ of Central Committee leaders, Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Stalin, who temporarily governed the USSR after Lenin. Since Stalin had Kamenev and Zinoviev killed, his secretary was one of the few to hear him say it.

There is of course a very good reason for suppressing the Stalin quote because it does apply all too well to the election. And there’s a profound sense of history repeating itself in the media trying to suppress a Stalin quote about using the media to suppress an election.

Because that is exactly what Stalin did.

Boris Bazhanov had worked as Stalin's private secretary and, unlike most of the murderous Communist dictator's associates, survived by escaping before he could be killed. Still a young man in his twenties, Bazhanov had seen too much and enough to know what was coming. On New Year’s Day, he fled across the border from Turkmenistan to Persia, then through India, surviving several assassination attempts along the way, before finding refuge in France.

Bazhanov's memoir about his time with Stalin had several titles, it's named Bazhanov and the Damnation of Stalin in English, but all of the versions lay out the damning story of how Stalin took over the Soviet Union by manipulating the system and ruthlessly purging his rivals.

What’s more remarkable than the quote related in Bazhanov’s memoir is its context.

The Soviet Union had arrived at a crucial moment. Communist economics had managed to fail in a matter of years. The Troika were overseeing a collapsing economy that had married socialism to the Czarist bureaucracy and its police state with terrible results leading to a surge of discontent from local labor and political organizations against Moscow’s centralized control.

If the Troika didn’t get the peasants and workers under control, the regime of the peasants and workers would be in trouble. The three members of the Troika met to discuss the crisis and the possibility that they could be ousted by their own membership if the uprising gained momentum.

"And you, Comrade Stalin, what do you think of this question?" Kamenev asked Stalin.

"What," Stalin replied, "of what question?"

"Of the question of capturing the majority of the Party," Kamanev said.

"Do you know what I think about this?" Stalin replied, "I believe that who and how people in the Party vote, is unimportant. What is extremely important is who counts the votes, and how they are recorded."

The quote, despite the attempts to suppress it with Stalinists fact checking Stalinism, is indeed real. But what’s more important is what Bazhanov relates happened after this conversation.

Before this, Bazhanov recalled that, “in most of the Party organizations the majority was not for the Central Committee. I know that in the huge cell of the Central Committee itself, the majority voted against the Central Committee… the Central Committee had lost the majority in the Party organization of the capital city, the most important in the country. The provincial organizations were falling into line with the Moscow one."

Stalin's response was to take control of Pravda and fake the results of the votes.

"If a certain cell had 300 votes for the Central Committee and 600 against," then Pravda flipped the voting totals so that they read, "For the Central Committee 600, against 300."

I’ll let Bazhanov tell the rest of the story without any more interruptions.

“Naturally, a cell whose election results were erroneously reported protested, phoning Pravda and asking for the section ‘Party Life.’ Nazaretian would politely respond and promise to verify immediately. The verification would show that ‘you are perfectly right, there was a regrettable error, the printers made the mistake. They're overworked, you know. The Pravda editors apologize. We will print a retraction.’ Each cell thought that its error was unique, for that cell alone, and was unaware that it had happened to most of them. Meanwhile, little by little the impression went around that the Central Committee was winning all along the line. The provinces became more prudent and began to follow Moscow, i.e., the Central Committee.”

Much like all the clerical errors and bad polls that began piling up during the 2020 election.

What Stalin meant was that the actual vote didn’t matter, when controlling the news also gave him control of how the election was reported. The actual votes could be tallied somewhere out there, but Pravda would report that there was a consensus in favor of the Central Committee.

Pravda would even pretend to be transparent by printing occasional corrections to create the impression that it was trustworthy, while the big lie of the election rolled on. That’s where the Soviet Pravda was ahead of the American Pravda which rarely even bothers with corrections.

When Stalin said, “who and how people in the Party vote, is unimportant,” but “what is extremely important is who counts the votes, and how they are recorded”, he was referring to the media.

Some might call it a historical irony or tragedy for a leftist media to try and suppress a quote whose import was that a leftist media can manufacture an election consensus by printing lies.

But it’s just destiny.

Stalin understood that elections without safeguards were merely procedural. The results of the election didn’t matter. All that mattered was what people believed because they had read it.

The New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, CNN, and the rest of the tottering infrastructure of the media exist to manufacture partisan narratives to secure political power. Like their Stalinist counterparts, they invert the meaning of terms so that ‘fact checking’ becomes suppressing facts, and the more they lie, the more they claim to stand for the truth.

But, Pravda was there first.

The 2020 election was rigged in multiple ways, but the most obvious one was messaging.

Big Tech monopolies and the media collaborated to spread Democrat narratives and suppress Republican ones. In the crucial pre-election period, the media’s lies, smears, and hit pieces against President Trump and Republicans became the only thing most people saw anymore. Scandals involving Hunter Biden were suppressed, ironically, as Russian disinformation, while the media shamelessly propagandized for Biden the way that Pravda had for Stalin.

The media was instrumental in claiming victory for Biden and in helping Democrat governors and secretaries of state orchestrate the illegal election rigging that changed election rules.

The trouble with the Pravda approach is that it only works for a limited amount of time. Stalin only needed it to work for a brief period until he had consolidated his power over the system. Pravda’s credibility only needed to last long enough for Stalin to be able to freely kill his rivals.

America’s Pravda has shot its credibility. Every time public trust in the media hits a new low, the media doubles down on the propaganda, the smears and the lies. In under a generation, the media has destroyed its business model and the credibility that it took centuries to build.

Now it whines about “right-wing echo chambers” and demands harsher social media censorship when it’s nothing more than a left-wing echo chamber trying to wipe out the opposition.

If the media knew anything about history, it would not only have been able to verify the Stalin quote, but it would also know that what it’s doing is a bad idea that can only end badly. .

Nazaretian, who had been assigned the task of doing Stalin's dirty work, rigging the election at Pravda, was killed along with the two members of the Troika, and much of the old Bolshevik establishment in The Great Purge, for being a propagandist who knew too much.

The media might want to learn a lesson from Nazaretian’s example as they lie for their radicals.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism

Thursday, December 31, 2020

December 31, 1912

By On December 31, 2020

 (Posting this article has become an annual tradition for eight years now. It's a reminder that the end of each year ushers in terrible unknowns, but also opportunities for heroism. History does not stand still, and we should never assume that we know how it will come out. History tells us otherwise.) 

The next year  sweeps around the earth like the hand of a clock, from Australia to Europe and across the great stretch of the Atlantic it rides the darkness to America. And then around and around again, each passing day marking another sweep of the hours.

While the year makes its first pass around the world, even if it doesn't feel like there is much to celebrate, let us leave it behind, open a door in time and step back to another year, a century past.

December 31, 1912.

The crowds are large, the men wear hats, and the word 'gay' means happy. Liquor is harder to come by because the end of the year has fallen on a Sunday. 

There are more dances and fewer corporate brands. Horns are blown, and the occasional revolver fired into the air, a sight unimaginable in the controlled celebrations of today's urban metropolis.

The Hotel Workers Union strike fizzled out on Broadway though a volley of bricks was hurled at the Hotel Astor during the celebrations. New York's Finest spent the evening outside the Rockefeller mansion waiting to subpoena the tycoon in the money trust investigation. And the Postmaster General inaugurated the new parcel service by shipping a silver loving cup from Washington to New York.

On Ellis Island, Castro, a bitter enemy of the United States, and the former president of Venezuela, had been arrested for trying to sneak into the country while the customs officers had their guard down. Gazing at the Statue of Liberty, Castro denied that he was a revolutionary and bitterly urged the American masses to rise up and tear down the statue in the name of freedom.

Times Square has far fewer billboards and no videos, but it does have the giant Horn and Hardart Automat which opened just that year, where food comes from banks of vending machines giving celebrating crowds a view of the amazing world of tomorrow for the world of 1912 is after all like our own. 

We can open a door into the past, but we cannot escape the present.

The Presidential election of 1912 ended in disaster. Both Taft and Roosevelt lost and Woodrow Wilson won. In the White House, President Taft met with cabinet members and diplomats for a final reception.

Woodrow Wilson, who would lead America into a bloody and senseless war, subvert its Constitution, and begin the process of making global government and statism into the national religion of his party, was optimistic about the new year. "Thirteen is my lucky number," he said. "It is curious how the number 13 has figured in my life and never with bad fortune." 

In Indianapolis, the train carrying union leaders guilty of the dynamite plot was making its secret way to Federal prison even while the lawyers of the dynamiters vowed to appeal.

The passing year, a century past, had its distinct echoes in our own time. There had been, what the men of the time, thought of as wars, yet they could not even conceive of the wars shortly to come. There were the usual dry news items about the collapse of the government in Spain, a war and an economic crisis in distant parts of the world that did not concern them. The Federal Reserve Act would be signed at the end of 1913, partly in response to the economic crisis. 

Socialism was on the march with the Socialist Party having doubled its votes in the national election.  All three major candidates, Wilson, Roosevelt and Taft, had warned that the country was drifting toward Socialism and that they were the only ones who could stop it. 

"Unless Socialism is checked," Professor Albert Bushnell Hart warned, "within sixteen years there will be a Socialist President of the United States." 

Hart was off by four years. Hoover won in 1928. FDR won in 1932. 

At New York City's May Day rally, the American flag was torn down and replaced with the red flag, to cries of, "Take down that dirty rag" and "We don't recognize that flag."

The site of the rally was Union Square, one of the locations where Black Lives Matter hangs out, taking over from Occupy Wall Street and generations of radicals.

There was tension on the Mexican border and alarm over Socialist successes in German elections. An obscure fellow with the silly name of Lenin had carved out a group with the even sillier name of the Bolsheviks. China became a Republic. New Mexico became a state, the African National Congress was founded and the Titanic sank.  

There was bloody fighting in Benghazi where 20,000 Italian troops faced off against 20,000 Arabs and 8,000 Turks. The Italians had modern warships and armored vehicles, while the Muslim forces were supplied by voluntary donations and fighters crossing from Egypt and across North Africa to join in attacking the infidels.

The Italian-Turkish war has since been forgotten, except by the Italians, the Libyans and the Turks, but it featured the first strategic use of airships, ushering in a century of European aerial warfare. 

There was a good deal going on while the horns were blown and men in heavy coats and wet hats made their way through the festivities.

World War I was two years away, but the Balkan War had already fired the first shots. The rest was just a matter of bringing the non-phosphorus matches closer to the kindling. The Anti-Saloon League was gathering strength for a nationwide effort that would hijack the political system and divide it into dry and wet, and, among other things, ram through the personal income tax.

Change was coming, and as in 1912, the country was no longer hopeful, it was wary.

The century, for all its expected glamor, had been a difficult one. The future, political and economic, was unknown. Few knew exactly what was to come, but equally few were especially optimistic even when the champagne was flowing.

If we were to stop a reveler staggering out of a hotel, stand in his path and tell him that war was five years away and a great depression would come in on its tail, that liquor would be banned, crime would proliferate and a Socialist president would rule the United States for three terms, while wielding near absolute power, he might have decided to make his way to the recently constructed Manhattan Bridge for a swan dive into the river.

And yet we know that though all this is true, there is a deeper truth. For all those setbacks, the United States survived, and many of us look nostalgically toward a time that was every bit as uncertain and nerve-wracking as our own.

December 31, 1912 was a door that opened onto many things.

Our December 31 is likewise a door, and if a man in shiny clothes from the year 2120 were to stop us on the street and spill out everything he knew about the next century, it is likely that there would be as much greatness as tragedy in that tale.

As the year sweeps across the earth, let us remember that history is more than the worst of its events, that all times bear the burden of their uncertainties, but also carry within them the seeds of greatness. Looking back on this time, it may be that it is not the defeats that we will recall, but how they readied us for the fight ahead. 

America has not fallen, no more than it did when the clock struck midnight on December 31, 1912. Though it may not seem likely now, there are many great things ahead, and though the challenges at times seem insurmountable and the defeats many, another year and another century await us.

Wednesday, December 30, 2020

Hollywood Fights to Free Muggers and Killers - and Lock Up Those Who Steal Their Movies

By On December 30, 2020
When George Gascon ran for DA of Los Angeles County on a platform of protecting criminals from cops, Hollywood money put him over the top. Once Gascon got into office, he began dismantling protection for victims of violent crimes. Even for the littlest victims.

The beneficiaries of his pro-crime policies funded by Hollywood included a monster who beat a 6-month-old baby girl so badly that her skull shattered leaving her with brain damage.

The little girl is now blind and can only eat through a feeding tube.

This is the pro-crime program that major Hollywood donors like Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Steven Spielberg, Warner Bros' first black TV head Channing Dungey, and other industry figures, had paid for. Hollywood has been a major source of cash for pro-crime politicians and legislation that helps criminals at the expense of their victims. Except in one particular area.

You can crush a baby’s skull, mug an 80-year-old woman, or break into the home of any ordinary person, but what you can’t do is infringe on Hollywood’s copyrights. And that’s why the same industry that champions muggers, rapists, and killers also embedded felony streaming into the omnibus bill that threatens offenders with anywhere from 7 to 10 years in prison for the "unauthorized" rebroadcasting of movies, shows, and sports over the internet.

This comes from the same industry that also funded the ‘legalization’ of shoplifting.

Proposition 47 essentially ended prosecution for thefts of under $950, replacing them with meaningless citations. The proposition, backed by Gascon, turned stealing anything under $950 into a misdemeanor instead of a felony. It was backed by major entertainment industry figures including Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Brad Pitt, Judd Apatow, Edward Norton, and a roster of other stars, two of whom have since been accused of sexual abuse, under ‘Artists for 47’.

But while fighting to make stealing hundreds of dollars worth of products from stores a misdemeanor, the entertainment industry was also fighting to make streaming a felony.

Rob a grocery store and you get a citation, but streaming an NFL game is a felony.

“All creative people want the same thing – to share their vision with the world and make a living doing it,” Creative Future argues. That’s a laudable thing, but why shouldn’t a store owner in Oakland expect to be able to earn a living without being robbed every day? Or are property rights reserved only for “creative” people working in an industry where plagiarism is the norm?

The industry trade group lobbying for felony streaming boasts a coalition that includes AMC, the Chinese Communist owned theater chain, CBS, Disney, the DGA, HBO, Lionsgate, Miramax, MGM, Paramount, Sony, Warner, and the cream of the same industry lobbying to free criminals.

One Creative Future letter barked that it “is long overdue to ensure that large-scale perpetrators of all forms of digital piracy may face meaningful criminal penalties”. The letter was signed by assorted industry trade groups including the DGA, of which Spielberg is a member, and SAG, of which most of the 'Artists for 47' and a number of Gascon’s backers are members.

There are to be “meaningful criminal penalties” for piracy, not for crushing a baby’s skull.

The DGA’s position is understandable considering its members include Victor Salva, a director convicted of sexually abusing the 12-year-old star of his first movie, but who went on to make horror movies produced by DGA Lifetime Achievement Award recipient Francis Ford Coppola before going on to make a Disney movie with the child he had abused protesting outside.

The DGA ran an interview with Roman Polanski, who had drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, sensitively asking the auteur, "could you conceive of ever working in America again or would the media circus just be too much to deal with?"

The entertainment industry prioritizes the money of its members, not the bodies of children.

Just ask DGA members John Landis and Steven Spielberg about the deaths of 7-year-old Myca Le and 6-year-old Renee Chen on the set of The Twilight Zone Movie while trying to portray the evils of America ‘bombing’ innocent Vietnamese children by fighting Communism.

The felony streaming bill is pushed by Senator Patrick Leahy, whose ties to the industry and Warners are so blatant that he had cameo roles in multiple Batman movies, and who favors all kinds of decriminalization measures for actual crimes like drugs and prostitution by minors.

But the industry likes legal drugs and minor prostitution, and hates illegal streaming.

Leahy’s press release for going easy on drug traffickers claims “we cannot afford to waste more and more taxpayer dollars on over-incarceration.”

Unless it’s incarcerating the enemies of the entertainment industry that holds his leash.

Hollywood, its trade groups, and the legislators they funded insist that their 7 to 10 years in prison for video streaming is all about "large-scale piracy" and won't affect ordinary people. There's obviously no reason to be skeptical that the government will abuse that power. Government never does. Just like Hollywood and the politicians they bought never lie.

And the same industry which tried to ban the VCR while claiming that "the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone" can be trusted not to overreach its power in order to maintain its grip on Americans.

"86.8 percent of all these owners erase or skip commercials," the Motion Picture Association boss had once ranted at a congressional hearing.

"The average number of cassettes per household… 28 cassettes. Now, if… all you are doing is you are away from home and you are taping something... you don't need 28 cassettes. You need one cassette or at the most two. Why do you have 28?"

The same industry that treated the number of VCR tapes Americans had in their homes as evidence of a criminal conspiracy can be trusted to write reasonable and sensible laws.

“We have the best congress money can buy,” Will Rogers supposedly once joked. Complaining that industry trade group lobbyists and lawyers write laws is like pointing out that water is wet.

This is the ordinary everyday corruption of our political system that resulted not only in felony streaming, but the CASE Act, a system to take copyright litigation out of courts and to arbitrators, allowing the industry to hit ordinary people with $30,000 judgements, along with assorted tax breaks that were rolled into the omnibus spending bill. And then there's a five year tax break for Hollywood that allows producers to expense $15 million in production costs.

But when the same industry that criminalizes those who infringe its intellectual property rights also decriminalizes robbery, rape, and assault against ordinary people, it’s too much.

“At the age of 6 months, this little child was bludgeoned over the head by a babysitter. She suffered traumatic brain injury; she had a skull fracture, multiple hematoma in her head, she’s now permanently blind and now the District Attorney wants to drop the great bodily injury allegation which would mean this defendant would be eligible for probation, she would serve no time for a heinous, heinous crime,” Sam Dordulian, the pro bono lawyer for the family, warned.

This is the outcome that Steven Spielberg, Netflix, Warner’s TV boss, and other industry power brokers paid for when they bought the DA election for the Black Lives Matter candidate.

Now Warner Bros, Spielberg, through the DGA, and the rest of the industry want to send people to prison for 10 years for streaming videos while crushing a baby’s skull gets you probation.

“The DA of Los Angeles County has stated that all allegations involving the Great Bodily Injury of a child (ex: burns, fractures, blindness, or broken bones) shall be dismissed," an LA Deputy DA warned.

Break a child’s bones, blind or burn him, and get off with a slap on the wrist. But don’t you dare stream a movie. Hollywood has standards. Releasing criminals is a good thing. Muggers, rapists, and child abusers should be on the loose. But lock up everyone who prevents Hollywood from making as much money as it can from Frozen 3 or Big Bang Theory reruns.

It’s not that Hollywood opposes criminal justice on principle. Illegally stream its movies and it will fight to throw you into the same cell vacated by the rapists and murderers it fought to set free.

Prisons, it believes work. So does the criminal justice system. They must, otherwise Hollywood wouldn’t be pushing to send people who stream its products to prison for a decade.

It just doesn’t believe that thugs who break into your home should be sent to prison.

Much as it believes that guns work, when carried by its armed bodyguards, but doesn’t believe that you should be able to own a gun to protect your home from the criminals they set loose.

And that is the real crime.

The Left’s oligarchy is building a two-tier society under the guise of fighting for social justice. Crimes that violate its property and political propriety will be punished more ruthlessly than ever, but the crimes that destroy the lives of the working class and the middle class will be legalized.

In Hollywood’s America, there will be chaos in the streets, but its corporations will wield supreme power. No shopkeeper can be safe, but every studio will be covered. There will be police, but you won’t call them when you’re mugged: they will come when you make a meme.

There will be one law for the ruling class and another for the little people. And these laws will be administered by the handpicked appointees of the ruling class who will stop prosecuting violent crimes, but aggressively prosecute infringements on the financial interests of the ruling class.

That’s not some future dystopia. It’s LA.

And it’s coming to all of America.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.



Follow by Email