In the winter of last year, a dozen Muslims tried firebombing the 163-year-old Gothenburg Synagogue.

The attackers threw firebombs at the house of worship forcing dozens of Jewish teens to take refuge in the cellar while waiting for the police.

The synagogue was already protected by heavy concrete barricades and bulletproof doors. A frail Star of David hangs over the formidable stone building made more so by added barriers and defenses against terrorist attacks. A quarter of the membership fees for the congregants go to cover security costs.

Three years earlier, the Rabbi had received a threat in broken Swedish warning, “Soon will come the time when the Gothenburg synagogue will be destroyed to the ground with you inside, and then you too, you pig, will be killed in the eternal fire.”

The police only caught three of the attackers. All three were refugees, one from Syria and two others claimed to be, “Palestinians”. Instead of being sent to prison for arson, they were only convicted of vandalism. Two had residence permits while the third, a Gazan, had his asylum application denied.

The Muslim racist was supposed to have been deported and banned from returning until 2028. But a Swedish appeals court overturned his deportation because his “basic humanitarian rights” might be threatened by Israel since firebombing a synagogue “could be perceived as a threat to other Jews.”

Unlike Sweden.

"We have freedom of religion here in the country. This may not apply to the right of the Jews to practice their religion in their synagogue," a 2004 article observed. A member of the congregation described reporting an attack to the police only to have them drop it due to "the absence of evidence".

“There are no signs of increasing antisemitism in Sweden, say the police. Was this not how it started in the 1930s. In another country. In another Europe. Do we want to see it again?” the article asked.

Fourteen years later, it’s a fact of life.

Sweden is not the only European country to legalize Muslim synagogue burnings.

Earlier that same year, a German high court ruled that the attempted firebombing of the Bergisch Synagogue in Wuppertal was not anti-Semitic, but a protest against Israel. The three Muslim “Palestinian” attackers had been let off with a slap on the wrist and suspended sentences.

A lower court had ruled that “no anti-Semitic motivation could be identified in the arson committed by the defendants”, instead the Muslim terrorists were trying to draw “attention to the Gaza conflict”.

(And the Nazis were trying to “draw attention” to the death of a Nazi diplomat with Kristallnacht.)

Such decisions finding that hatred of Israel justifies violent attacks are not unusual in European courts.

In 2010, a British judge all but cheered on leftists who had smashed up a factory exporting components to Israel.

Judge George Bathurst-Norman compared Israel to Nazi Germany, and suggested that the leader of the vandals deserved a medal. “You may well think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time,” he had told the jury.

Last year, Saleh Ali, a Syrian Jihadist refugee, made headlines when he was caught on video smashing the windows of a kosher restaurant in Amsterdam. The police were also caught on video allowing him to smash HaCarmel’s windows without interfering.

He was back on the street in two days.

The court convicted him of vandalism and gave him a suspended sentence even though Ali had refused to answer the judge’s questions, and gave an interview in which he had declared that he did not regret his actions. He had also told officers that the attack on the Jewish restaurant was “only the first step”.

The court did not convict Ali of a hate crime. Nor did the authorities charge him with anything more than vandalism. The same vandalism that the police had done nothing to stop while it was happening.

The judge, like a number of lefty politicos in the Netherlands, instead blamed President Trump, but generously suggested that Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem was not the fault of the restaurant.

The HaCarmel restaurant was reportedly on the verge of shutting down after a series of attacks and threats including phone calls shouting, “Allahu Akbar”.

HaCarmel wasn’t located in a Muslim no-go zone. The Heineken Experience and the Van Gogh Museum are less than two miles away. If this is what it’s like in “the new place to be in Amsterdam Old South”, imagine what it’s like in less touristy areas where the police don’t show up at all when you call for help.

In November, it will be the 80th anniversary of Kristallnacht. In those dark days, Nazis smashed up Jewish synagogues and businesses. Like the attempted firebombing of the Bergisch Synagogue (also targeted by the Nazis) and the assault on the HaCarmel restaurant, the Nazi thugs claimed that they were acting in retaliation for Jewish atrocities: the assassination of a gay Nazi diplomat in Paris.

And, like the Nazi thugs, the Muslim thugs throwing firebombs at synagogues and smashing Jewish store windows, are acting with the covert sanction of the authorities, which offer them a slap on the wrist.

Instead of the explosive violence of a single Kristallnacht, a slow-motion Kristallnacht is taking place.

For the 75th anniversary, Berlin stores put plastic stickers on their windows to make them appear cracked. But who needs the illusion of smashed windows when for the 80th you can get the real thing?

A firebomb here and there. An assault or two a week. A store shuts down. And then another. There’s nothing as startling as the original Kristallnacht. No single day of massive violence to shock the conscience of the world. Instead an accumulation of incidents is shuttering Jewish businesses, turning synagogues into medieval fortresses and emptying European cities of their Jewish populations.

Without a single conglomeration of atrocities, there are only statistics, incidents and anecdotes.

You read one and then you move on.

The slow-motion Kristallnacht lacks the obvious endorsement of the authorities enjoyed by the Nazis. But the covert endorsements can be spotted in the actions of the police, prosecutors and judges who ignore crimes, fail to act, and even when acting, do as little as possible, in the rhetoric of judges who find every possible loophole and excuse for the Islamic thugs staging their very own Kristallnacht.

Call it collaboration.

In November, the eightieth anniversary of Kristallnacht will dawn on a Europe where Jews are once targeted and on the run. This time there will be no populist leader to blame and no easy scapegoat. Instead the villains are who they were all along, not the scowling mustachioed men on the posters, but the officials and the bureaucrats who pretend to only be following orders, when they’re really the ones giving them. And the Islamic Kristallnacht doesn’t even require them to do either one. They just have to step aside, keep the borders open and then offer Muhammed an understanding wink in the dock.

Then they will nod and agree that anti-Semitism is a serious problem, but they have it under control. There will be photo ops at a march, an appearance at a synagogue, a condemnation and then more firebombings, murders and smashed windows as the slow-motion Kristallnacht continues.

“Death to the Jews” has a new slogan: “Refugees Welcome.”



Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

On Saturday, the Human Rights Campaign, the country's top gay rights lobby, held its 22nd annual dinner. Top speakers included Joe Biden, who bemoaned the lack of acceptance for gay people, Anne Hathaway, who shrieked, “Let’s tear this world apart and build a better one”, and Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, who declared, “The age of bullies and bigots is not fully behind us”.

Holder would know. He was last seen posing with Louis Farrakhan at Aretha Franklin's funeral. The leader of the Nation of Islam is both a bigot and a bully. He also loathes gay people.

The HRC dinner was taking place at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center concurrently with the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Phoenix Awards.

Holder's boss, Barack Obama, had been caught posing with Farrakhan at a Congressional Black Caucus event. And multiple CBC members have refused to condemn Farrakhan. They include Rep. Danny Davis, who had called Farrakhan an “outstanding human being”. They also include Rep. Maxine Waters.

On Friday, the day before, Rep. Maxine Waters had received the National Leadership Award from the National Newspaper Publishers Association.

The NNPA is an association of black papers that includes Final Call, the paper of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Ford, GM, AT&T, Pfizer, AARP, Comcast, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation act as partners and sponsors of an association that includes a notorious racist and anti-Semitic hate group.

Ford had spent a long time trying to live down its past association with another anti-Semitic paper, The Dearborn Independent, only to end up associated with yet another violently anti-Semitic publication.

The HRC has its own extensive relationship with Ford. It has nothing to say about Ford’s NNPA role.

At the 2018 Black Press conference sponsored by the NNPA, which had previously honored Senator Kamala Harris, the First Place Feature Writing Award went to a Final Call article, “The Feminization of Black Men” which quoted Farrakhan’s claims that drugs were being used to turn black men gay.

"He can make you think you’re a homosexual, he’s feminizing the Black man," the racist leader declared. "You are the guinea lambs of White experimentation."

"We now have feminization and homosexual behaviors being normalized in the Black community," another of the article's experts warned.

The NNPA awarded piece then went on to quote Nation of Islam minister Wesley Muhammad, whose version of the ‘Pot Plot’ warned that that the government and the Jews were using pot to make black men gay.

“It’s the US government and the Synagogue of Satan’s scheme to use manipulated marijuana along with other drugs to de-masculinize and feminize the black male of America," Wesley warned at a mosque. “While it cannot be said that the Pot Plot that we are exposing is a strictly Jewish conspiracy, the Synagogue of Satan is the key player."

Last month, Mary Beth Maxwell was forced to resign as the head of the education arm of the Human Rights Campaign for using the ‘N-word’ twice. But nobody at the Congressional Black Caucus or the NNPA is resigning. Not for the racism, the anti-Semitism or the homophobia.

The NNPA’s tolerance for both shouldn’t be surprising. It’s headed by Ben Chavis, a former NAACP boss and former member of the Nation of Islam, who had tried to steer the NAACP closer to Farrakhan.

At the HRC dinner, Anne Hathaway denounced white and straight privilege, attacking the “myth” that “gayness orbits around straightness, transgender orbits around cisgender, and that all races orbit around whiteness.” The tidy intersectional formula though doesn’t remotely reflect reality.

Identity politics is a coalition of separate identity resentments united only by loathing the construct of an oppressive majority, of whiteness, straightness and whatever othering formula the left is offering this week. Once you get past those common bonds of bigotry, of hating the same people, unity falls apart.

The attendees at the National Newspaper Publishers Association and the Congressional Black Caucus dinner move in the same Democrat orbits, but have very different views of each other. Eric Holder goes from rubbing shoulders with Louis Farrakhan to pontificating for wealthy gay donors at the HRC dinner.

Wells Fargo and Pfizer sponsor both the NNPA and the HRC, funding both celebrations of gayness and of the promotion of conspiracy theories about drug companies, governments and Jews conspiring to make black men gay. It’s not just individuals, but politicians and major corporations on the ‘down-low’, appealing separately to wealthy gay men and the black political allies of an anti-gay hate group.

Nobody speaks about the essential contradictions of a movement that includes both militant denunciations of homophobia at the HRC dinner and the NNPA’s support for Farrakhan’s militant denunciations of homosexuality. The friction between gay nationalism and black nationalism is just another of the many schizophrenic frictions of the Democrats in the dark age of identity politics.

Identity politics nationalism is based on a thousand clashing convictions of the superiority of the group and the inferiority of outsiders. Every identity politics group has its own Farrakhan, the ‘extremist’ who is popular within that group because he preaches its total superiority and the inferiority of the ‘Other’.

No matter how much the left wants to unify pride and identity politics nationalism around hating an artificial idea of straight white men, a multicultural society is one with a multitude of hatreds. The more diverse America becomes, the more diverse the varied hatreds of the rainbow coalition will get.

The left killed liberalism, tolerance and coexistence. What’s waiting in the wings is Farrakhan

Apologists on the left insist that black people love Farrakhan, not because of his bigotry, but because of his message of empowerment. But Farrakhan’s message of ‘empowerment’ is based entirely on his bigotry. The Nation of Islam’s message of black empowerment derives from its theological conviction that black people are a master race while white people (and especially Jews) are genetically evil.

Farrakhan’s message of “empowerment” is the same as Hitler’s. It lays out a vision of a naturally superior people being oppressed by their racial inferiors through trickery and cunning. The NNPA awarded an article whose rhetoric echoes Nazi Germany’s Goebbels almost word for word.

The black empowerment of the Nation of Islam that the left praised is based on racism, dehumanization and power. When Obama, Holder, leaders of the Women’s March, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus embrace Farrakhan, they’re showing their own hate. And the farce of identity politics.

When Eric Holder flirts with black nationalists and gay rights activists, whom does he go home with at night? Democrats running for the White House inevitably head to New York City to meet with Al Sharpton who once ranted about, “Greek homos”, and then condemn homophobia. Maxine Waters plays aunt to the #resistance of white lefties, but hugs Louis Farrakhan and collects an award from a press association that includes Farrakhan’s Final Call, with its claims of a plot to make black men gay.

The Democrats are all on the ‘down-low’, flirting with bigots and then condemning bigotry.

Corporations throw money at both the NNPA and the HRC, and any other diverse dinner they can find. The media could expose the contradictions, but it chooses to ignore principles for political expediency.

The obsessive accusations of bigotry aimed at Republicans are a typical example of projection. The left needs to believe that Republicans are bigots so that its members can pretend that they aren’t. As the devil’s bargain with identity politics takes hold, the accusations of bigotry grow shriller, not because Republicans have become more bigoted, but because the Dems are dealing with more internal bigotry.

The schizoid nature of identity politics is turning the Democrats into bigots who scream about bigotry.

And the more they scream, the more bigoted they are.

Meanwhile the NNPA, an organization that includes a racist paper put out by a racist hate group, is sponsored by Ford, GM, Bill Gates, AT&T, MillerCoors, the AARP, Coca Cola, Macy's, Toyota, VW, Pfizer, Wells Fargo and many other major corporations and organizations. Racism is big business once again.

Major corporations have gotten behind racism and anti-Semitism because the Democrats have.



Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Norm MacDonald was getting his hair and makeup done for The Tonight Show when the comedian was told by Jimmy Fallon, the show’s host, that he wouldn’t be going on.

It wasn’t the first time that NBC had booted Norm.

During the Saturday Night Live era, he had been fired from the show for repeatedly calling O.J. Simpson a murderer to the displeasure of NBC brass who had an extensive relationship with the murderer. Last time around, NBC had shoved Norm out the door for assuming O.J. was guilty. (After the verdict, he had famously joked, “It’s finally official: Murder is legal in the state of California.") But this time, Norm was shoved out for questioning the #MeToo lynch mob and its ‘verdict first, trial second’ lynch mob.

“I’m happy the #MeToo movement has slowed down a little bit. It used to be, ‘One hundred women can’t be lying.’ And then it became, ‘One woman can’t lie,'” Norm Macdonald had joke. “And that became, ‘I believe all women.’ And then you’re like, ‘What?’”

Then he expressed sympathy for Roseanne Barr, who had given him his first writing job, and Louis C.K.

‘What’ is now several apologies, a canceled appearance on The Tonight Show, and pressure on Netflix to cancel Norm MacDonald Has a Show, his latest series.

The outrage machine is going through its usual paces. And the target this time isn’t a comedian who did anything wrong, but who questioned the credibility and tactics of the outrage machine.

"I have so much pressure from so many people," Jimmy Fallon told MacDonald. "Senior producers are crying."

Fallon would know all about pressure. The knives had come out for him after a lighthearted interview with Trump early on. The left attacked Fallon for not attacking Trump. Like Norm, Fallon became a casualty of collateral outrage. His crime was not joining in with the lynch mob.

And it’s understandable that he didn’t want to be seen making the same mistake twice.

It’s no coincidence that many of the lynch mob’s targets have been comedians. There’s nothing fanatics hate more than being laughed at. And so the left is replacing comedy with the tyranny of the unfunny.

Take Netflix’s ‘Nanette’ special, please.

“The most radical thing Hannah Gadsby does in ‘Nanette’ is simple: She stops being funny,” The Atlantic raved. You’re not supposed to laugh at Gadsby, but cry and be outraged at her life of oppression.

Laughing at her identity politics tirades is a hate crime.

The leftist tyranny of unfunny turns comedy into a tirade. You don’t laugh at it; you applaud its hostility to all the wrong people and then cheer its courageously daring recitations of leftist tropes. Like a noose, ideology first weaponized comedy into a tribal tantrum and is slowly choking off the funny part. The distinction between making jokes about Trump and ranting about Trump has long since been eroded.

The politicization of comedy pioneered by trolls like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert didn’t just reduce the quintessential art of dealing with the existential problems of humanity to a political rant; it assumed that all comedy was political. If you were making a joke, it had better have the right message. Or else.

There was no such thing as an apolitical joke. Humor was a tribal test. One that Norm MacDonald failed.

The old role of the comedian as a court jester, shocking and amusing for its own sake, was replaced by the new role of the comedian as an anchorman, delivering the same talking points with more jokes.

And the new political comedy has no room for going off message.

Three years ago, Jerry Seinfeld noted that professional comedians are avoiding college campuses. “You can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive,” Chris Rock observed.

Offensive on your way to being inoffensive had been a staple of politically correct comedy for decades. It meant invoking stereotypes or politically incorrect humor in order to make a politically correct point. Typical examples include everything from All in the Family to South Park where characters might say politically incorrect things, but only to eventually affirm a larger politically correct idea about the world.

Comedians might trade in stereotypes and shock humor, but only to condemn them.

Writers had bypassed censorship in countless tyrannies by contending that the immoral vagaries of their art were only a means to a righteous end. If they portrayed evil, it was only to show its defeat. If they invoked immorality, it was only to ultimately uphold virtue. (And if their tale seemed to linger more on the former than the latter, that too was a necessity.) And comedians had to say offensive things to relay the leftist worldview to their audiences, briefly challenging it, only to ultimately reaffirm it.

But now the left won’t accept anything short of total compliance with its speech codes.

There was, as Jimmy Fallon found out, only one correct approach to take to Trump, raging hatred. And you can make any joke you want about the #MeToo movement, as long as it’s aimed at its targets.

The one thing you’re not supposed to do is question a movement which claims that no one ever lies. (Except the people it accuses.)

Norm MacDonald was fired from Saturday Night Live for saying what everyone knew was true. He was pulled from The Tonight Show for once again saying what everyone knows is true, but are too afraid to say out loud. That includes Norm, who’s already been forced to apologize.

Saying those types of things is exactly what comedians used to do. That’s what made them dangerous.

Comedy is becoming safer for audiences (at least urban audiences on the left who check the headlines each morning to find out what they’re supposed to believe) and more dangerous for comedians. Echoing the party line doesn’t make for great comedy. There’s only so many ways to tell jokes about how stupid the capitalists are and their ignorance of the eventual glorious triumph of Communism.

Leftist tyranny is born out of creative ferment and then locks it away once it wins.

The left exploited the destructive powers of comedy to take apart the values and convictions of society. But now that it won the culture war, it wants comedy control. And that’s just not funny.

The new era of unfunny leftist tyranny is purging comedians and replacing them with angry activists who do talking points, not jokes, who rant about their causes and their politics, but who are as humorless as any fanatic underneath the forced grin that they occasionally have to wear in front of the cameras.

“It’s weird that you can commit murder and go to prison and do your time and then everybody goes, ‘He’s done his time, he deserves to work, how dare you treat him as less than you just because he murdered a guy,’" Norm MacDonald wondered. “And yet the Twitter mob, there is no sentence for it."

There is a sentence.

“Out of sensitivity to our audience and in light of Norm Macdonald’s comments in the press today, The Tonight Show has decided to cancel his appearance on Tuesday’s telecast,” Fallon’s failing show announced.

Audiences don’t go to comedy shows to have their sensitivities catered to. But in the unfunny tyranny of the left, everything is sensitive and nothing is funny. The ethos of the campus, its safe spaces and trigger warnings, its monotonous recitations of political agendas and endless outrage machine with its Twitter social justice guillotines, is everywhere now and pervades every single thing.

“I love stand-up. I’m totally addicted to it,” Roseanne Barr had said. “It’s free speech. It’s all that’s left.”

Not anymore.

Jimmy Fallon’s retreat won’t save him. And neither will Norm MacDonald’s apology. No matter how much Fallon attacks Trump, he has never been forgiven for his original sin of not being one of the mob.

The outrage machine never forgets or forgives. If it fails once, it bides its time and tries again. It can’t be appeased. Giving it power only feeds its fury and hate. The only thing you can do is laugh at it.

If you dare.







Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Two million people arrived in Germany in 2015 and 1.8 million people next year in 2016.

Jawed came to Germany in 2015, while Abdul had arrived the year after in 2016. Both Jawed and Abdul were Afghan Muslim migrants. Both applied for asylum and had their asylum applications rejected.

Abdul Mobin Dawodzai was recently sentenced to eight years in prison for stabbing to death Mia Valentin, a 15-year-old girl, to death. Jawed went to Amsterdam and stabbed two American tourists at the central station.

Abdul was angry that Mia broke up with him. Jawed was angry about insults to Islam and Mohammed.

Jawed’s German residence permit enabled him to carry out a terrorist attack in Amsterdam. He mentioned Geert Wilders, the pioneering Dutch leader who was recently forced to cancel a Mohammed cartoon contest due to violent Islamic threats, and so the media has chosen to blame the terrorist attack on Islamic cartoons rather than Islamic terrorists. But Jawed is part of a larger trend of Afghan violence.

Both Jawed and Abdul carried out their stabbing attacks in public. The victims, a 15-year-old girl and American tourists, also brought more attention to a type of ordinary terror that has overtaken Europe.

In March, Hussein Khavari, an Afghan refugee who had fled to Germany in 2015, was sent to prison for raping and murdering Maria Ladenburger, a 19-year-old German student. But Hussein wasn’t fleeing Afghanistan; he was fleeing Greece, where he had thrown a 20-year-old female student off a cliff after robbing her. The Greeks sentenced him to a decade in prison, but Hussein fled to Germany instead.

Like Abdul, Hussein claimed to be a minor when he was actually in his twenties. (He may not have even actually been from Afghanistan.)

Afghans, it’s been noted, stand out for their rate of violence, even among other Muslim migrants.

A refugee expert warned in a National Interest article that, "young Afghan men... were committing sex crimes to a much greater extent than other refugees." Among the incidents she cited was, "a gang of fifty Afghans who terrorized women in the neighborhood of the Linz train station" in neighboring Austria.

Train stations are a common venue for Afghan Muslim violence and abuses. A small sampling of sexual assaults committed by Afghan refugees last year in Germany, collected by Gatestone’s Soeren Kern, included, a sexual assault on an 19-year-old woman on a train station in Hamburg, two sexual assaults by one Afghan man on two trams in Mannheim, a sexual assault on a 14-year-old girl at a station in Munich, another assault in Munster, and two Afghans who sexually assaulted a 14-year old girl in Gera.

(Not to mention the three Afghan migrants accused of sexually assaulting a 12 and 14 year old at a swimming pool, and the Afghan refugee, and repeat offender, who raped a 13-year-old girl.)

Angela Merkel, Germany’s open borders leader, had briefly ramped up Afghan deportations in response to public outrage, until a massive bombing in Kabul last year led to yet another change in policy.

The tanker truck bomb targeted the German embassy in Afghanistan’s capital, and succeeded in doing massive amounts of damage, even though German intelligence had 5 months of warning from four different sources. The German embassy had been warned 6 days before the attack and was able to evacuate staff ahead of time. Instead the bombing was exploited as a pretext for suspending the deportations of Afghans from Germany unless they were criminals or considered a serious threat.

Merkel’s deportations had removed less than 200 Afghans from the country. But the bombing put an end to even that miniscule effort.

The thousands of Taliban fighters who, according to the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), had entered Germany and applied for asylum, could conveniently no longer be deported.

Earlier this year, a German court sentenced Abdol Moghadas, an Afghan refugee, to four years in prison for his role in the death of Pfc. Christian Jacob Chandler: an American soldier serving in Afghanistan.

Abdol was one of Germany’s many Taliban fighters.

Why have so many Taliban gone to Germany? One answer might lie in the covert relationship between the Taliban and German intelligence. It was Germany who had pioneered diplomatic talks with the Taliban, and who had welcomed Taliban leaders onto German soil.

It was certainly curious how German authorities had received every possible warning about a Taliban truck bomb whose sole impact was protecting thousands of Taliban in Germany from deportation, while giving German authorities the excuse to shut down the deportations they hadn’t wanted to carry out.

The end of deportations didn’t just benefit the Taliban fighters, but failed asylum seekers like Jawed and Abdul who could no longer be deported even though their asylum applications had been turned down. Germany had sharply dropped its acceptance rate of Afghan asylum applications, while also dropping its deportation rate, leaving large numbers of legally illegal Afghan migrants to bum around Europe.

Approximately six months later, Abdul killed Mia, and over a year later, Jawed struck in Amsterdam.

"Terrorism has no borders," Merkel had declared after the bombing. But terrorism has borders. They're national borders.

It's Merkel's Germany that has no borders. And it's the European Union's lack of borders that allowed Jawed to stab two American tourists in Amsterdam. When your country or continent has no borders, then terrorism will strike deep in your cities with no borders to slow it down or stop the carnage.

Terrorism "targets all of us," Merkel had insisted. In "Manchester or Berlin, Paris, Istanbul, St. Petersburg or today in Kabul."

But it’s only when there’s nothing stopping Taliban fighters on their way from Kabul to Berlin, from Istanbul to Paris, or from Tripoli to Manchester, that Islamic terrorism is truly a universal threat.

Terrorism doesn’t have to be everywhere. Especially Islamic terrorism, which is not an indigenous political movement in Europe, Canada, Australia or America, but can only spread through migration. Without open borders, the infrastructure of Islamic terrorism, from immigrants, migrants and refugees, to mosques, which generate new converts, Islamic terrorism would be an issue in Kabul, not Berlin.

Merkel’s insistence on linking the bombing in Kabul to terrorism in Europe had it backward. The suspension of deportations cost countless lives, among them, likely Mia’s, and likely led to the stabbings of two Americans in Amsterdam by a refugee traveling with a Germany residency permit and hate in his heart. The flow of Muslim migrants from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan brought terror to Europe.

When there are no borders, when deportations are a toothless affair, when the rights of migrants matter more than those of the native population, then Islamic terrorism truly has no borders.

The Amsterdam stabbings were a typical example of Merkel’s borderless terrorism.

Germany’s open borders attracted Jawed, Abdul, Hussein, Abdol and so many other asylum seekers. And then the EU’s internal open borders allowed Jawed to strike at American tourists in another European country. That’s what happens to ordinary people when terrorism has no borders.

Terrorism can have borders. All you have to do to save lives is protect those borders.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing was the beginning of the Democrat 2020 primaries, and the winner was the Senate Democrat who yelled the worst possible thing.

That was Senator Cory Booker.

Unlike some Senate Dems, Booker didn’t just confine his attack to Brett Kavanaugh, a mild-mannered man widely beloved by both the Democrats and Republicans who worked with him, he went for broke.

The Founding Fathers were racist geniuses, Booker insisted. Their constitution was flawed. Originalism, interpreting the Constitution as it was written, rather than whatever social justice activist the Dems had managed to plant on the bench, is going to be racist and sexist, because its authors were deplorables.

“Native Americans were referred to as savages, women weren’t referred to at all, African Americans were referred to as fractions of human beings. As one civil-rights activist used to say ‘constitutu, constitu, I can only say three-fifths of the word,’” Booker bloviated.

Who is this “civil rights activist”? A violent racist who had called Adolf Hitler “the greatest white man”.

You can see why Booker might have hesitated a bit when using him to bolster his claim that the Founding Fathers of this country were flawed racist sexist men. Even though, unlike Booker’s civil rights hero, they didn’t admire Hitler or call for the mass murder of Jews.

Senator Cory Booker doesn’t yawn without first rehearsing it before three staff members and two consultants to extract the maximum amount of pathos from each fake gesture. He had been regularly delivering the same attack on the Constitution as a stump speech. You can find Senator Cory Booker bleating the same basic remarks last March at SXSW before a much friendlier lefty audience.

“Look, our founding documents are saturated — unfortunately — are scene with replete through them, these examples all those darker strains of human nature,” Booker held forth at SXSW. “Native Americans are referred to as savages, women aren’t referred to at all. Blacks are, you know Stokely Carmichael used to say, constitute constitute I can only say three fifths of the word.”

Booker appeared to have also quoted Carmichael in June of last year and again in July of this year.

There are examples going back several years, with Booker saying, “Stokely Carmichael said it best: we are the leaders we’ve been looking for.”

In a July interview this year, his Stokelyite attack on the Constitution was even harsher. “Yeah, if you read the Declaration of Independence now, you see the Native Americans referred to as “savages.” And women are clearly, by their omission, a second-class citizenry. Stokely Carmichael — I love how he used to always say, ‘Constitu-, constitu- — I can only say three-fifths of the word.’”

But the sneering line about the Constitution isn’t Stokely’s most famous quote.

Two others are way ahead of it: “The only good Zionist is a dead Zionist we must take a lesson from Hitler” and “The only position for women in SNCC is prone."

Anti-Semitism has become socially acceptable among Democrats, but the party that sent in activists to scream that Brett Kavanaugh was a horrible sexist and a sexual harasser by association is okay with Stokely’s sexism and Booker’s admiration of him. The left’s standards, like its vision, are all double.

Stokely Carmichael, better known as Kwame Ture, was a leftist bigot who had called for racist violence.

Black Panther Mark Essex burst into a New Orleans hotel, shouting, “I want the whites!” He murdered a young honeymooning couple, hotel guests and staff members, and a number of police officers. Stokely Carmichael praised Essex, saying, “We should study and learn from the actions of Brother Essex. We should understand that Brother Essex carried our struggle to its next quantitative level, the level of science.”

Carmichael had also declared, “I’ve never admired a white man, but the greatest of them, to my mind, was Hitler.”

"Go home and get your guns," Carmichael had urged after Martin Luther King’s death, "When the white man comes he is coming to kill you. I don't want any black blood in the street.”

"We are preparing groups of urban guerrillas for our defense in the cities," he warned in Communist Cuba. "It is going to be a fight to the death."

Stokely Carmichael burned through the SNCC and moved on the Black Panthers, but his violent hatred of white people proved to be too much even for the black nationalist hate group. But Booker’s hero nurtured a particular hatred of Jews. And his anti-Semitic threats led to actual anti-Semitic attacks.

Nor did Carmichael have any objection to that.

“Zionist pigs have been harassing us everywhere,” he warned at the University of Maryland, “And when this anger rises, will snap our fingers and finish them off."

It was 1990.

Senator Booker has repeatedly quoted a violent racist. At the Kavanaugh hearing, he cited an attack on the legitimacy of our founding documents from an advocate of a socialist black nationalist revolution through mass murder, a supporter of Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and assorted murderous dictators.

And yet there’s nothing extraordinary about it.

Carmichael’s anti-Semitism had been defended in the past by Rep. Keith Ellison, the number two man at the DNC and Dem nominee for Minnesota Attorney General. He was attended by Rep. Maxine Waters.

Americans are treated to non-stop lectures about racism from top lefties like Cory Booker. But they are the ones who are the most in need of those hectoring lectures about the evils of racism.

When former president Barack Obama, former president Bill Clinton and Eric Holder, a top DOJ official in both administrations, have been caught hanging around with Farrakhan, there’s a racism problem.

When Senator Booker casually quotes a violent anti-Semitic racist, there’s a serious racism problem.

It’s a problem of black racism. And until it’s taken seriously, there are no other conversations about racism worth having. When the top figures in the Democrat party are okay with anti-Semitism and racism, then their political faction and its media apparatus has no right to lecture on racism.

In October 2016, Booker tweeted a photo commemorating Farrakhan's Million Man March. "May the unity and spirit of the march continue to live on," he wrote, over a photo of a marcher brandishing a poster that included Louis Farrakhan. No complex interpretation of hand gestures is needed here.

Farrakhan, like Stokely Carmichael, is a racist and anti-Semite who admires Hitler. And he’s a pal of presidents and politicians. Including the men who lecture us on how racist the Founding Fathers were.

There is a deep racist and anti-Semitic disease in the leadership of the Democrats. As Senator Cory Booker brings his hatred for the Jewish State to the Senate, he should be asked whether he agrees with his hero, “The only good Zionist is a dead Zionist we must take a lesson from Hitler”.



Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Sweden has one of Europe’s highest rates of sexual assaults.

At 120.79 violent sexual assaults per 100,000 people, and 56 rapes per 100,000, the otherwise bleak socialist country ranks as having the second highest rate of sexual violence in Europe.

What makes Sweden so exceptionally dangerous for women? Its militant feminism is embedded in its political culture and its educational system. Sweden has boasted of a “feminist foreign policy”, 61% of Swedes in one survey identified as feminists and hold the strongest views on “gender equality” of any Europeans. Swedes are the most likely to believe that it’s okay for men to cry. Only 11% believe that women should take care of the home and only 10% believe that it’s a man’s job to support his family.

A local branch of the Left Party in Sweden even demanded that men urinate while sitting down.

And then there are the Czechs, just 13% identify as feminists, 77% think that a woman’s place is in the home, yet the sexual assault rate is 7.79 per 100,000, a tiny fraction of feminist Sweden.

If the real issues were feminism and toxic masculinity, if sufficient educational indoctrination about the evils of masculinity is needed to “teach men not to rape”, women should be safest in Sweden.

So what went wrong?

Instead of traveling from Stockholm to Prague, let’s take a closer trip over to neighboring Finland.

Finland has a third of Sweden’s rape rates and a quarter of its sexual assault rates. Its numbers are still far higher than most of Europe, but nowhere near those of Sweden.

What could possibly explain the difference?

Finland is also fairly feminist, but the Muslim proportion of its population is only a third of Sweden. Finland has a third of Sweden’s Muslim population proportion and a third of its rape rate.

Sweden has the second highest non-indigenous Muslim immigration population rate in Europe and the second highest sexual assault rate in Europe. It would be foolish to pretend that this is a coincidence.

Take Ireland and the United Kingdom. The UK tops even Sweden in Europe’s sexual assault and rape statistics. At 130.96 per 100,000 for sexual assaults and 50.68 per 100,000 for rapes, the United Kingdom is the most dangerous place for women in Europe. One analysis claims that 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted and that 3.1% of women were assaulted in just the last year.

But then why do the numbers for nearby Ireland look so strikingly different? Like Finland, Ireland’s numbers are high, but nowhere near as high as those in the United Kingdom.

The UK’s sexual assault and rape rates are roughly four times as high as those of Ireland. And at 6.3% versus 1.4%, the difference in Muslim population percentages is in almost perfect proportion.

London, with its great diversity, has the highest rape rate within the United Kingdom.

Finland was once part of Sweden. Ireland was once part of the United Kingdom. Unlike comparing distant countries where differences can be accounted for by a great variety of factors, Finland and Ireland serve as a kind of control group measuring the impact of immigration on Europe.

Belgium, which hosts the capitals of the European Union and of Islamic terrorism, is in third place. At 65.92 sexual assaults and 25.50 rapes per 100,000, women are unsafe in the capital of the EU. Meanwhile Hungary, the country in the news for its clashes with the EU over admitting Muslim migrants, has a sexual assault rate of 2.45 and a rape rate of 3.82.

Belgium has the third highest Muslim population rate and the third highest sexual violence rate.

Brussels has a thousand programs and regulations pushing feminism. Hungary has a wall. The lesson from Sweden and Brussels is that if you want to stop rape, professional feminism doesn’t work, walls do.

At 0.86, Serbia has one of the lowest sexual assault rates in Europe. And at 8.8, France has one of the highest. Eastern European countries, generally not known for their militant feminism, have low rates while the more “progressive” Western European countries suffer from very high rates.

The Netherlands has the fourth highest sexual assault rate in Europe and the fourth highest non-indigenous Muslim population rate. Germany has the sixth highest assault rate and the sixth highest Muslim population rate. Not all the numbers add up so well, but those that do are quite disturbing.

There are European countries with low Muslim population rates, but high sexual assault rates. Portugal, Finland and Latvia are all examples. But there is no European country that has a high Muslim immigrant population and a low rate of sexual violence. All of the top Muslim immigrant countries are in the red.

The differences are sometimes striking when measuring culturally dissimilar neighbors.

Germany sits next door to Poland. Sexual assaults in Germany clock in at 33.55 while in Poland, they’re at 1.40. Muslims make up 6.1% of Germany and less than 0.1% of Poland.

The statistics suggest that the key factor is not necessarily a high Muslim population, but a high Muslim immigrant population. Bulgaria has a sizable Muslim population that has been living there for a very long time. And its sexual violence rates are quite low. It’s particularly immigrant populations coming from societies with a very different set of Islamic mores that lead to epidemics of sexual violence.

European countries with ancient Muslim populations don’t appear to have large sexual assault rates. It’s the countries that admitted large numbers of Muslim migrants in a matter of decades that are suffering.

Islamic doctrines and Arabic cultural mores that permit, explicitly or implicitly, the sexual assault of non-Muslim women who are not dressed properly or walk unaccompanied by a male relative, are pernicious. And Muslims rapists in Europe and Australia have cited belief and culture in their defense. But mass migration is often inherently disruptive, breaking down values and trust in stable communities.

That trust then has to be rebuilt in ways that the media and the entertainment industry frequently reduce to simplistic moralizing tales about trusting people who are different, but that in practice take generations to restore lost social capital. There can be gains along the way, but any honest accounting must measure the horrifying losses, including these shocking assault rates, against the gains.

Sweden has the second highest non-indigenous Muslim population rate in Europe and the second highest sexual assault rate in Europe. Belgium has the third highest Muslim population rate and the third highest sexual violence rate. The Netherlands has the fourth highest sexual assault rate in Europe and the fourth highest Muslim population rate. Germany has the sixth highest assault rate and the sixth highest Muslim population rate. Are all of these numbers just a random coincidence?

Feminist government policies don’t stop sexual violence. Not when the same feminist governments open the borders to mass migrations from countries where women have no legal or cultural rights.

The more open a European country is to Muslim mass migration, the more dangerous it is to women.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

“Like most American Jews, I was raised with the delusion that Israel was a safe haven for me,” Julia Salazar wrote on Mondoweiss, an anti-Semitic hate site, while denouncing the Jewish State.

Salazar’s rant had appeared on a racist site whose creator had complained that his publication had been banned from DailyKos because of “my repeated insistence on talking about the large Jewish presence in the American establishment and the importance of Jewish money in the political process” and one of whose editors had declared, "I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, but I can understand why some are."

In reality, Salazar had been baptized as a Catholic, her uncle was a Jesuit priest, and her brother made it clear that no one in the family was Jewish. The Jewish part of her past was as fake as the rest.

And it was this biography that the Democratic Socialists of America candidate was running on. The DSA had been hoping to turn Salazar into the next Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, with the support of radical lefties like Cortez, Cynthia Nixon and Zephyr Teachout by playing up her imaginary biography.

But Salazar, a socialist candidate running for the State Senate in New York, had lied about that, and nearly everything else. Caught on video, claiming, “I immigrated to this country when I was little,” she had actually been born in Miami to an Italian-American mother and a Columbian immigrant father. Despite growing up in a mansion, she claimed to have a working class background. Her mother and her brother between them tore up most of her fake biography of a hardscrabble, immigrant life.

But it was the original expose by The Tablet of Julia Salazar’s lie about her Jewishness that started the flood. And the response from Salazar and her supporters was to accuse the Jewish community of racism.

Salazar, who had her own anti-Semitic history on Twitter, accused the Jewish publication that had exposed her appropriation of Jewish identity for anti-Semitic purposes of practicing, “race science.” The socialist candidate and her supporters insisted that as a “woman of color”, she was a victim of Jewish racism. The Democratic Socialists of America backed their candidate and repeated her anti-Jewish slurs.

Salazar's campaign had put out a statement claiming that the "fact that, as a woman of color, I am facing accusations that my deeply held identity is a false one says more about the politics of Jewish identity" and was an example of Jews practicing the "bigoted policing of the identity of Jewish people of color".

New York City DSA co-chair Bianca Cunningham echoed Salazar's anti-Semitic smear by dismissing outrage in the Jewish community as a question of "whether or not a woman of color can practice that religion."

Instead of apologizing for her misrepresentations and exploitation of the Jewish community, the DSA’s socialist candidate had accused her Jewish critics of racism. And the DSA took up Salazar’s smear.

Salazar’s meltdown wasn’t the first time that the Democratic Socialists of America had backed anti-Semitic candidates and then stood by them no matter how ugly their bigotry became.

On the other side of the country, DSA-LA continues to back Maria Estrada for California State Assembly District 63 despite her praise for Farrakhan, accusations that Jews were exploiting the Holocaust, and attacking a Jewish Democrat for not keeping “your party, your religion and your people in check.”

"Anyone who believes they are one of ‘God’s chosen people’ automatically feels superior and justified in all they do," Estrada ranted.

Estrada’s racism was criticized by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, reported on in numerous Jewish publications, and yet the DSA and Bernie Sanders’ Our Revolution, refused to withdraw their support. When contacted about her hateful views, both the local and national DSA, as well as the local and national Our Revolution organizations, failed to condemn Estrada.

Estrada’s accusation that the Jews exploit the Holocaust was echoed by her fellow racist in New York. "These people exploit Holocaust for their hot takes," Salazar had tweeted.

The anti-Semitic rhetoric of Democratic Socialists of America candidates like Estrada and Salazar may be inevitable. The DSA views Corbyn’s Labour, with its embrace of anti-Semitism, as its political model.

The DSA’s 2017 convention featured a speaker from the Momentum movement within Labour, a subset which has been linked to much of the harassment of Jews in Labour. At his appearance, the DSA faithful burst out cheering for Jeremy Corbyn, an anti-Semitic bigot and terrorist supporter.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, the former Chief Rabbi, described Corbyn as an “existential threat” to British Jews, who gives “support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate, who want to kill Jews and remove Israel from the map" and uses “the language of classic prewar European anti-Semitism.”

"Anti-Semitism has returned to mainland Europe within living memory of the Holocaust,” Rabbi Sacks warned.

This is the bigot whose name the DSA conference met with unrestrained applause on the same day that it voted to support BDS. Is it any wonder that the DSA has refused to condemn Estrada’s anti-Semitism or Salazar’s malicious smears of Jews?

The Labour speaker invited to the DSA conference was Marcus Barnett, who had cheered Venezuelan socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro. In addition to murdering protesters, seizing power and presiding over a country where there’s no drinking water, power or food, Maduro had at one point demanded that "the Jews that live in our lands" do something to stop Israel.

Also at the DSA convention was a representative from Melenchon's France Insoumise. Melenchon’s blatant anti-Semitism, was so bad that it was even condemned by members of the DSA’s Jewish Caucus.

But instead of insisting that the DSA end its ties to an anti-Semitic movement, Lane Silberstein, a DSA and If Not Now member, weakly argued that, "Jewish socialists have had to contend with one of history’s most egregious eras of antisemitism— from which the left was not immune in promoting — and yet they continued to proudly identify as socialists… we will carry on that tradition and not shy away from working with the left.” The technical term for that is collaboration with anti-Semites.

Much as when D.C. Councilmember Trayon White accused the Jews of controlling the weather, the same leftist activists who rushed out to defend Salazar, Women's March's Sophie Ellman-Golan and If Not Now's Rafael Shimunov, came to his defense. White makes frequent appearances in editions of the Washington Socialist, the house organ of the MDCDSA, which has been able to lobby the D.C. racist.

It’s not only Julia Salazar who fundamentally misrepresented her background. Salazar, like Ocasio-Cortez, is a bid at humanizing radical leftists and making their movements appear more approachable.

But what’s behind the scenes is an ugly alt-left.

The same year that Corbyn's man showed up to be hailed by the DSA in Chicago, Bhaskar Sunkara, a former DSA vice chair and Jacobin Magazine publisher, ran a GoFundMe fundraiser to "Internationalize the DSA Convention".

Bhaskar's goal was to cover airfare for "members of Jeremy Corbyn's staff, Momentum, France Insoumise". The fundraiser's banner included the Soviet flag waving from a rifle barrel.

That’s the same flag under which countless Jews were arrested, tortured, imprisoned in camps and murdered. It’s the same flag under which Judaism and Hebrew were effectively outlawed. It’s the flag of the regime that spread its anti-Semitic propaganda through the left at home and around the world.

After the Julia Salazar scandal broke, Bhaskar Sunkara announced that he was so outraged by a Jewish magazine’s expose of the Socialist scammer that he would be donating to her campaign.

The DSA’s anti-Semitism isn’t accidental or sloppy. It’s not just about Israel. It’s ideological.

The Democratic Socialists of America attract anti-Semites for the same reason that Corbyn does. And, like Corbyn’s Labour, it ignores the problem, attacks Jewish critics and covers for its hateful allies.

The media has made much of the rise of socialism. But the rise of the DSA won’t just be dangerous for freedom and civil rights in this country. It will pose a threat to the safety and security of American Jews.

The DSA threatens to ‘Corbynize’ the Democrats into an anti-Semitic political movement.



Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

2017 was a banner year for acid attacks in Britain.

465 of them occurred in London. Most of the acid attacks are taking place in East London. The borough of Newham tops the acid attacks chart with 85 last year. What’s so special about Newham?

Nothing the media will tell you.

Newham has the second highest Muslim percentage population and the lowest native British population in London. Tower Hamlets, which has the highest Muslim population percentage, has the second highest rate of acid attacks.

None of the two dozen media explainers pretending to explain why London became the world’s acid attack capital have bothered citing that simple statistic. Instead there’s lots of mumbling about poverty, gang violence and the need for household cleaner control. To add on to the failed knife control policy.

The UK boasts the highest number of recorded acid attacks in the world. It narrowly beats out Bangladesh for the honor only because it has more transparent crime statistics and because a sizable percentage of the population of that Muslim country has relocated to the cozy boroughs of London.

Bangladeshis are one of the largest populations making up Newham and Tower Hamlets. Add on the Pakistanis, also world champions of acid hurling, and three other countries and minorities who also figure prominently in those areas, and it’s clear that immigration transplanted acid attacks to the UK.

London has an acid attack problem for the same reason that it has an Islamic terrorism problem. And it has them for the same reasons it has an honor killing problem, a sex grooming gang problem, an FGM problem and a witch problem.

Yes, witch problem.

British Department of Education statistics show that there were over 1,400 child abuse cases between 2016 and 2017 based on the belief of the parents that their children were witches or demons.

Acid attacks in London were up 500% since 2012. And witchcraft and demonic possession child abuse is up 900% since 2011. Those numbers show just how immigration and diversity are transforming the UK.

In 2012, there was already the one thing that no government could be without in a crisis: an action plan. The “National Action Plan to Tackle Child Abuse linked to Faith or Belief” debuted. It noted that, “Cases of adults inflicting physical violence or emotional harm on children they regard as witches or possessed by evil spirits are known across the world.” Except that they weren’t common in the UK in 500 years.

The action plan's example was Kristy Bamu, a teenage boy, who was tortured for days, and had his teeth smashed, before being drowned by his sister and brother-in-law for being a witch.

The Bamus were from the Congo. The murder happened in Newham which has a sizable population of Congolese immigrants. Believing that children are witches is common enough in the Democratic Republic of Congo that there are 50,000 “child witches” living on the streets of Kinshasa.

How many child witches will there be living on the streets and dying in the flats of London in a decade?

Despite the British government’s action plan, the number of child abuse witchcraft cases just keeps rising. No amount of action plans can solve a problem whose roots are buried in faith and culture.

Trying to convince people who believe in witchcraft and demonic possessions that they shouldn’t torture children is as futile as convincing people who believe in the supremacy of Islam not to kill.

Between 2016 and 2017, not only were there over 1,400 cases of witchcraft child abuse, but there were over 5,300 recorded cases of women and girls who had undergone female genital mutilation.

33% of the cases had come through Somalia. 88% had come out of Africa.

Mutilating girls in this fashion is illegal in the UK. But the law is effectively not enforced. The few prosecutions ended in acquittals or dismissals.

Police reports of FGM cases meanwhile rose from 137 in 2014 to 647 in 2016. A 372% increase.

Newham, one of the “youngest and most diverse” boroughs, has hundreds of girls estimated to be at risk for FGM. Newham has its own Female Genital Mutilation Prevention Service and the NHS has a special clinic for FGM victims serving women from Waltham Forest, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Redbridge. Newham takes third place for FGM among London’s boroughs. Top honors went to Southwark. Only 57% of the population of Southwark was born in the United Kingdom.

But between the acid attacks, the witchcraft and the genital mutilation, Newham truly has it all.

“Honour” based violence, everything from honor killings to FGM to forced marriage, reported to the police rose from 3335 in 2014 to 5105 in 2016.

What do a 500% rise in acid attacks, a 900% increase in witchcraft child abuse and a 372% rise in FGM police reports have in common? They’re the wages of diversity and demographic change.

Islamic terrorism is only the most obvious and explosive charge in the clash of cultures.

FGM, honor killings and witchcraft child abuse, all efforts by traditional cultures to control their children, only increased because of the transition of these immigrant groups to the UK. Like Islamic terrorism, these forms of abuse are a reaction to and rejection of a new society. The difference is that the violence of Islamic terrorism or the Muslim sex grooming gangs are external, directed at the surrounding culture, while torturing and killing your own children is violence directed internally within the community.

Both types of brutality are a clear statement that an immigrant group feels that its values are threatened by living in the UK and that it seeks to protect those values through violence.

Diversity is a mechanical talking point in the modern world. A pause inserted into every sentence. A cliché beaten to death in every pamphlet. But diversity not only brings acid attacks, witch torture, Islamic terrorism, honor killings, FGM and a thousand other horrors into the United Kingdom, those horrors are also a response to and a rejection of the same diversity that immigration advocates adore.

Parents torturing their children and terrorists blowing themselves up in London are not only clear evidence that diversity has failed, they are diverse attacks on diversity by very diverse populations.

It’s fashionable for the smart set to believe that the majority, white people, hates diversity. But it’s the bombers and stabbers, the torturers and mutilators, who truly hate diversity. And so they have doubled down on the same measures that they used to keep their children in line in their own home countries.

They don’t want their children turning British and they’re willing to mutilate their genitals, smash out their teeth, run them over, and marry them off at a young age to make certain that they don’t.

And some of those children grow up convinced that the way to redeem themselves in the eyes of their parents, to prove that, despite all evidence, they haven’t been tainted by British ways, is to run over members of the hated native population in the streets, stab them, shoot them or blow them up.

Al Qaeda and ISIS have gained so many adherents in Europe and America because diversity is hated. Immigrant populations hate diversity far more than the biggest right wing activist ever could.

Conservatives make rational arguments against the blind worship of diversity. Muslims fight and die to stop it. Immigrant groups mutilate, abuse and kill their own children out of hatred of diversity.

Maybe it’s time to listen to those rational arguments.

Either that or watch another 900%, 500% or 300% spike in honor killings, witchcraft child abuse, acid attacks and genital mutilations. Or the latest round of Islamic terrorist attacks tearing through London.

Arguments, even the most rational ones, can be ignored. Violence can’t.

Rational arguments warn of the consequences of stupid behavior. But the consequences are an even better argument. And, unlike arguments, the more you ignore them, the worse the consequences get.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.