Letter to the Editor: By George, Boy George Gets It -- No Genocide in Gaza

T

here is no genocide in Gaza. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize this.

However, as David Suissa wisely (because so simply) points out, it does take a genius to market the truth effectively to overcome the repeated propaganda of the pro-genocide Gaza Palestinian cult.

It certainly helps that major figures in entertainment tell the truth, who for all intents and purposes have no skin in the game or specific care about the outcome of the war.

At this point in the social media sphere, culture wars can cancel a celebrity’s career.

Yet Culture Club’s own George O’Dowd dares to tell it like it is.

There is no genocide in Gaza. It’s a shame and a travesty for anyone to claim otherwise.

His AI-generated song gets to the point.

“You say genocide. I say war.”

Then the song continues:

“Does it get ugly? You bet it does.”

By George, Boy George gets it.

For those who still don’t understand, of course there’s no genocide in Gaza. Israeli forces allowed Gaza's children to receive aid, to leave Gaza to receive care in Israel as well as Italy.

The IDF leaflets civilian areas in Gaza, warning that they will strike the region to take out Hamas terrorists, strikes which are determined after extensive analysis.

Israel could have dropped a nuclear bomb and wiped out Hamas (and everyone else).

It’s war—and even civilians die. When it comes to the evils of armed conflict, I remember this quote from Union General William Tecumseh Sherman, when he was describing the horrors of the American Civil War:

“War is hell … War is cruelty.”

Finally, Sherman added that the only way anyone can stop war, once the other side has started it: you make it so cruel that the other side never initiates war again.

Denying the Holocaust: Deborah Lipstadt, Revisited

 

Over 30 years ago, historian and social critic Deborah Lipstadt wrote a powerful book, Denying the Holocaust, warning the public about the dangers of this pernicious ideology. This year, I was drawn to this book because debates are raging again, this time amplifying across social media, about the truth of World War II, what happened in the death camps, and how we sift out the truth from the lies.

I wasn’t expecting to agree with her on everything. She’s an unabashed liberal, progressive, even. Her ideological bent was crystal clear when President Joe Biden nominated her as US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism in 2022, for which she received unanimous confirmation. During her confirmation hearing, Republican members confronted her over a number incendiary, inflammatory, even libelous statements that she had published about them as well as then former president Donald Trump. One of her targets, Wisconsin US Senator Ron Johnson, confronted her about her nasty remarks directed at him over the January 6th incident. She didn't look very good trying to defend the indefensible, and she ultimately apologized.  She ultimately got the job because Democrats control the US Senate at the time, and no one wanted to appear opposing the fight against anti-Semitism, no matter the appointment.

Despite her current left-wing bent, Lipstadt is a fierce defender of freedom of speech. During an Oxford Union speech in 2016, she declared that Holocaust deniers should have the freedom of speech, including the right lie about history. However, historians must have the right to call them out for their dishonesty, too.

As for her book, her extensive research and discussion on the Holocaust, the Denialist industry, the tactics used by the Deniers come off as very current, even though she wrote the book three decade ago. Indeed, underneath the surface of seeming scholarship and respectability, once finds a morass of bitterness and bigotry against a group of people. Their relentless determination to blame Jews for all the ills of the world comes out in page after page among Holocaust deniers, even if they have Ph.Ds. and claim that there works is exhaustive research.

Before talking about specific deniers—institutions and individuals—Lipstadt announces in her first chapter that she refuses to debate Holocaust deniers. They are repugnant not merely for holding noxious views, but for their deliberate refusal to recognize the copious archives, research, and data affirming the horrific systemic slaughter of six million Jews under Hitler’s Third Reich. In her view, a debate with a denier is to legitimize their views as serious scholarship or opinion.

Throughout her book, I reflected on that notion, and I found that it does have some merit. You don’t debate people who have no serious regard for truth, evidence, integrity, or process. Why give them a platform? Then again, the survivors, the historians, the archivists all have a responsibility to debunk the lies and keep telling the truth.

 

Throughout the book, her political bent was crystal clear, which is the only defect. She spent a great deal of time attacking right-wing interests and organizations for promoting Holocaust denial. She criticized patriot groups, liberty groups, and even the John Birch Society in the same sentence as discredited Holocaust denial organizations. I know many John Birchers, and they are not hostile to Israel nor do they traffic in Holocaust denial.

I wonder what Lipstadt is responding to the growing anti-Semitism on the left. From the Democratic Party’s growing demonization of Israel, to the repeated attack against Jews as “privileged members of the intersectionality hierarchy”, including the recent decision by civil rights attorney Alan Dershowitz to leave the Democratic Party over its overt anti-Semitism, the Left has transformed into the repository of Holocaust minimalism and outright denialism.

Of course, there's one other problem fundamental to her work. She treats Nazis and national socialists as right wing. Reviewing the Nazis’ politics and policies policy, it’s clear that they were a left-wing ideology, complete with the nationalization of industries, universal health care schemes, gun control, massive government spending, and an abusive expansion of the state to undermine individual liberties. In this regard, sadly, Deborah Lipstadt engages in a little revisionism of her own. Yet her bias does not negate that dangers of Holocaust denial and the necessary responses to combat it.

Putting aside the criticisms, Deborah Lipstadt's book was very informative. I learned about the incredible work of Mel Mermelstein, a Holocaust survivor who lived through Auschwitz, immigrated to the United States, settled in Long Beach, California and then took on the challenge from the notorious Holocaust denier pseudo historical journal the Institute for Historical Review. The specific account is fascination: the IHR offered $50,000 to Holocaust survivor who could prove that Jews died in gas chambers. Mermelstein took the challenge, even though many Jewish groups had discouraged him. Not only did he win the contest, but he took IHR to court and forced them to pay a larger award for pain and suffering! Leonard Nemoy started in a TV movie retelling the story.

Lipstadt goes to great length to document it not just the truth of the Holocaust, but the extensive research behind it, and she even goes into length how Holocaust deniers exploit and distort the evidence to push their destructive, false narrative. She calls out specific pamphleteers, and how all too often they merely reference each other to create this cloud of credibility around their work.

She pays considerable attention and elucidates true historical revisionism. When it comes to interpreting the facts of history, revision is not only essential, it’s endemic. Historians are always piecing together the evidence before them, seeking patterns and searching out causes and effects. What revisionism cannot do, Lipstadt affirms, is change the facts, ignore the truth, or lie about the evidence itself. Holocaust deniers routinely engage in those vile practices.

Also to her credit, she spends an entire chapter castigating college newspapers around the country who printed advertisements from Holocaust deniers. Many of the newspapers, their editing boards, and the administrators at the respective campuses engaged in an extensive, rigorous debate about whether freedom of speech should require the newspapers to print the ads. This section of her book was particularly intriguing, because she did a thorough job of exploring the different points of view, even though she was critical of many of them. 

She maintained that no newspaper should have posted the advertisements. Since in her view, such publication would lend credence and legitimacy to Holocaust denial views. Furthermore, some of the advertisers gave the impression that the deniers were offering only a difference of opinion. No—they were categorically lying, like claiming that 2 + 2 = 5 or that George Washington never existed. That is not a matter of opinion or interpretation, Lipstadt affirms. Furthermore, private newspapers have the right and responsibility not to print lies, nor are they bound by the First Amendment to print everything submitted to them.

 After reading Denying the Holocaust, I appreciated Lipstadt calling out the cowardice and collusion of the universities and printing houses. Her takes against the Holocaust denial industry are relevant today. We should appreciate her stand for truth, even if her politics is misguided or just plain wrong.

 

 

 

The People Who Enable Men in Women’s Sports

 

The United States Supreme Court has weighed in, and in a welcome 6-3 decision, they have determined that states can bar confused men from women’s sports.

This conflict was an 80-20 political winner for Republicans, and it remains a winning issue for them, since the regressive left has no interest in backing away from their (shotgun wedding) support for the LGBT cult.

They are running into a buzzsaw of political self-immolation on this issue, nonetheless. No matter how liberal, brazenly progressive, and just plain insane Democratic activists and their coterie of political coalitions may get, anyone with two eyes can see that men are different, and they have insurmountable advantages over women.

Even left-leaning news anchors on The Hill acknowledged the unavoidable injustice of allowing these biological men to compete against women and romp them again and again.

For men to step into the identities of women and then push them off the competition field is just brazenly wrong. Women’s groups were rightly up in arms about this whole affair of anti-biological folly. For decades, they had fought to ensure their own competitive opportunities, and now another interest group was charging in to take away their game.

As of now, twenty-seven states refuse to allow confused men in women’s sports.

The Supreme Court ruling is a big win for women.

It’s clearly wrong, and it’s evidently evil, to allow this abuse of rights and the language of fairness to erase women’s sports.

But deeper issues remain unresolved.

Obviously, men should not pretend to be women and invade women’s sports. Yet how many of the women in these different fields took a stance early on to stop the insanity? Why did the coaches and administrators across the country not speak up and shut down these barbarians in women’s clothing from entering women’s arenas to begin with?

Too many were quiet when they needed to be loud—or louder.

Many of them tried to hide behind the middle route.

Breitbart News claimed that the judges in a California sporting event made a bold decision during a very contested competition. True, the tournament judges awarded first place to a confused male athlete who placed first in a female competition. But they also handed a first-place medal to the female who placed second.

Such compromised cowardice is not a bold decision.

Such posturing is a marked capitulation. A BizPacReview op-ed captured the spirit of this barren attempt to save face for the competition while also recognizing the unfairness of the whole setup: “High school competition devolves into public humiliation ritual for girls.”

The girls had to stand on the stage with a man, pretend that he is a she, let HIM win first place, wave and smile as though all is well with the world, that this is normal. They might as well stop using podiums and invest in Podi-Hims at this point.

And the adults enabled it.

All of the adults monitoring the young women, the larger audience of parents watching these competitions, with their clapping and celebrating, all sat by and watched a confused (creepy) biological male compete and best young women in their field.

The adults are complicit. That’s the problem. The decision-makers didn’t declare the obvious and end the madness at the outset.

As long as the emperor marches in the street wearing nothing, and no one says anything, then the lie continues. That’s the larger point.

Transgenderism at its core is a lie, a corrupted ideology born out of the evil fruit of Marxist indoctrination and machinations. Truth no longer matters, no matter how political or ideologically incorrect it may seem on the surface.

The fight against “Transgender women in women’s sports” is not over because of the refusal to attack the core lie. Feminists focus on fairness, and they speak from identity politics. They posit the whole fight based on women’s rights and women’s place in the public square. What about right and wrong?

Parents are focusing on their daughters and their college futures. What about everyone else’s kids? Sure, they oppose some confused boy competing against their daughter, but they don’t have anything to say about the other confused boys invading women’s sports elsewhere?

What steps have these parents, these adults, taken to encourage their daughters to speak up and stop the trans insanity? For the past five years, I have watched dumbfounded as young women said nothing while men invaded their spaces. Confused men crashed into women’s beauty pageants. Men would push their way into dart competitions. Men would insist on using the same bathrooms, locker rooms, and fitting rooms, and it seemed as though they acquiesced to the madness.

I was too hard on the girls. The adults who were supposed to be protecting them, who were supposed to be defending them, who should have put aside their reputation and their reception among the local leaders in the community, didn’t speak up. They didn’t want to appear phobic, hateful, disgraceful in front of their peers.

If the adults wouldn’t step up, no surprise that the kids didn’t say anything, either.

And how could they speak up? They didn’t have any foundation of authority. If fairness is the standard, then truth doesn’t matter.

And that’s yet another point.

Where’s the discussion on the basic facts? Men cannot become women. Men are not women, and women cannot be men. Fairness alone as the main doctrine fails in the long run. Why? Because the LGBT activists and their sheepish, sheeplike allies are also arguing from a place of fairness.

“These transgender-identified individuals want to play sports, too. Why are you discriminating against them? It’s not fair!”

Thus, the insanity continues. Why do the common people stay quiet?

Too many in the general public have been sucked into the discrimination dungeon. They don’t want to be labeled something mean. They fear the social media backlash. They have bought into the corruption of civil rights, and they don’t want to be compared to the KKK or Bull Connor because they don’t want confused men invading their daughters’ spaces, sports, and very selves.

I have listened to countless testimonies from frustrated parents of daughters who complain to school boards about the violation of their daughters’ personal space and place on the field.

Yet all too often, these parents will preface their speeches with: “I don’t hate the transgender community,” or “I have nothing against transgender people,” or “I love transgender kids, and some of my friends are transgender, too, but ….”

Does anyone not see the problem here? Too many adults still don’t.

Granted, the Supreme Court took a stand where many of the adult leaders, coaches, and administrators refused. Yet even their stance has limits. The states that have banned men from women’s sports may maintain and enforce those prohibitions.

What about the states without those protections? What about the states where the powers that be insist on protecting the “rights” of the cross-dressers with cross-sex hormones instead of the rights of real girls and women? This conflict has not been resolved.

Reverse peer pressure could force transgender holdouts to get in line with biological reality. Then again, very few said anything before. Why should the transgender cultists change now?

The Controversies at LifeSiteNews

John Henry-Westen, the CEO and Editor-in-Chief of LifeSiteNews, was recently removed from his position by the LifeSiteNews board. Then he got reinstated.

These moves caught much of the pro-life, pro-family, religious conservative world off guard. That’s saying a great deal, considering that pro-life and pro-family conservatives have seen all kinds of moral decline and degradation becoming the norm throughout the West. Pro-family fighters have witnessed same-sex “marriage,” rising defenses for pedophilia, and the increased push for assisted suicide. So little shocks us now.

What’s going on here? Should we be concerned? Why is one of the flagship pro-family (and anti-LGBT) news sites facing such leadership turmoil?

First, let’s talk about LifeSiteNews.

This Catholic-based news site has rigorously and accurately documented the downfall and decline of a De-Christianized West. For years, their commentary and confrontation on these matters commanded respect. They even republished the activist reporting from the organization I work for—MassResistance—because of our unwavering commitment against the LGBT agenda in all of its perverse forms.

LifeSiteNews did not back away from calling out moral corruption. To their credit, they were not only unafraid to call out the wrongs and evils of homosexuality and transgenderism. They were a welcome voice for social conservatives like me because they unflinchingly criticized the Republican Party, including President Trump, as they cozied up to so-called LGBT “conservatives” infiltrating the larger conservative movement. Their countercultural attack on mainstream conservatism gave me hope in spite of the growing fecklessness or cowardice of conservative leadership to oppose same-sex “marriage”, adoption, and the like.

So, what’s going on at LifeSiteNews? Is the leadership getting soft, embracing pro-“gay” messaging? Not a chance.

Rather, the news site has taken a dark turn on another set of issues.

For the last two years, I noticed the site’s publishing an increasing number of anti-Israel, anti-Zionist articles on many policy fronts. They were cataloguing the so-called war crimes of the IDF and blasting American politicians and foreign policy makers as puppets of Israel.

Here’s a sample:

Orthodox rabbi: Zionism a ‘cardinal sin’ for Jews, creation of Israel is ‘satanic’

Zionism: Rebellion against God?! | Rabbi speaks out

Why is a Catholic-oriented news site interviewing a Rabbi? And why are they going off on Israel and Zionism?

Oh, and it gets better (or rather, worse). They talk about the horrendous “Israel Lobby” that supposedly controls Washington:

GOP Congressman Thomas Massie exposes Zionist lobby’s power over Congress

Leaked audio exposes Israel lobby’s enormous power over the Trump administration

WATCH: Candace Owens exposes the Israel lobby’s stranglehold on America

For what it’s worth, Candace Owens has been exposed as an intellectual lightweight with a shaky grasp of the facts. She celebrated Andrew Tate, a serial pornographer under indictment for sex trafficking, while denouncing pornography. She also claimed that Hitler was not that bad.

Regarding the purported power of AIPAC, most of their funding goes to Democrats, and the Democratic Party has become increasingly hostile to Israel. As for Congressman  Massie, his performance theater against big spending is starting to wear thin. He never called out the big spending from his fellow US Senators, and he voted for liberal Republican Tom Emmer to be the next Speaker of the House this year. The focus and subject matter of these reports leave much to be desired.

And sadly, LifeSiteNews has thrown itself into the USS Liberty conspiracy. (I refute those talking points here.)

In 2023, Patrick Delaney, one of the editors at LifeSiteNews, wrote, “Orthodox patriarchate condemns ‘Israeli radicals’ for attacking bishop, priest at Church of Gethsemane.”

Yes, there are Jewish radicals, as there are radicals in other religions. What is conspicuously missing from this coverage, however, is the widespread denunciation from other Jews against such abuses. In contrast, Islamic militants have committed all sorts of crimes and terrorism against innocents—Christian, Jew, Muslim—and there is no condemnation from residents in Gaza or Judea and Samaria of their hostilities.

For the record, the Israeli government has cracked down on hyper-orthodox adherents harassing Christians, and local Rabbis raised funds to help repair a Catholic church attacked by Jewish radicals, too.

In 2024, Delaney wrote a particularly egregious article, claiming that Israel was conducting a “genocide” against the residents of Gaza following the October 7^th, 2023 terrorist attack from Hamas:

Israeli soldiers celebrate the ‘torturing, humiliating, and mocking’ of Palestinians on social media

I refused to remain quiet in the face of these blatant lies. I wrote an extensive response email (republished here), refuting the libelous claims about Israel and American foreign policy vis-à-vis the Jewish State. I focused on the redefinition of “genocide.” I also pointed out that his using “Al-Jazeera” as a legitimate news source is suspect.

Delaney responded, and he provided a broad mixture of half-truths and misdefinitions to justify his dishonest arguments.

LifeSiteNews eventually printed my letter, along with Delaney’s response (InfoWars republished the article, too!), but referred to me as “William” and called me a “Christian Zionist journalist,” presumably as a smear. I wear such terms as a badge of honor. The most damning aspect of Delaney’s defense of calling Israel’s attacks on Hamas “genocide” rested on his contortion of the term to include any form of fighting in a combat zone!

With all of this information in the background, let’s get to the firing and rehiring (?) of John Henry-Westen.

LifeSiteNews Co-Founder and Managing Editor Steve Jalsevac released a statement regarding Westen’s departure:

While legal constraints prevent us from delving into extensive detail, I can share that the decision was influenced by several factors, including a 72% drop in readership from 2021 to 2024 during John-Henry’s tenure as CEO, a decline in monthly and new donors, and other business challenges. Additionally, an internal survey revealed significant concerns regarding staff sentiment and safety scores, which further informed the board’s considerations.

 

Nonprofits have to keep the money flowing, but should stick to their principles. A steep drop-off of nearly three-quarters of your readership is troubling.

I can guess why LifeSiteNews is losing readers and donors:

The Pro-Hamas, Anti-Israel Propaganda!

Truth matters in the fight against moral and sexual degradation. When a Catholic-based news site insists on pushing pro-terrorist propaganda, venturing into foreign policy conspiracy theories, they are embracing lies, one can expect that their once-faithful readership will be repulsed.

And now, we receive word that John Henry-Westen has been reinstated.

Surprisingly, the site issued a very short reinstatement statement:

The LifeSiteNews Board of Directors voted today to restore John-Henry Westen to his former position.

 

“John-Henry Westen has been recognized by the board as the President and CEO of lifesitenews.com Inc. subject to administrative review and investigation.”

C.J. Doyle of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts issued the following analysis:

"This is likely the only time in the history of corporate governance that a statement restoring a CEO showed even less cordiality than the statement which announced his firing.

The brevity, timing and language of the announcement all suggest a profound reluctance, or even resentment, on the part of those who issued it.

It was released at 5:47 EDT on a Friday afternoon, a time best suited to minimize publicity on a story that a corporation or a government agency wishes to bury.

The use of the word 'recognized', rather than the more usual 're-appointed' is curious. It might suggest that the previous vote was somehow improper or legally defective.

The inclusion of the phrase 'subject to administrative review and investigation' suggests continued hostility towards Westen by the Board of Directors.

There is also a striking omission. There is no mention of Westen being restored as Editor-in-Chief of LifeSiteNews, a position specifically referenced in his termination announcement.”

LifeSiteNews is losing readers, then they bungled the removal of the CEO. C.J. Doyle’s analysis makes sense. Potential litigation often scares organizations into a quick, unexplained course correction.

But did the board fire Westen because of the website’s increasing embrace of anti-Zionist propaganda? One of the frequent commentators on the site, Peter LaBarbera, shared with me that Westen was not removed because of the anti-Zionist turn in reporting: “It wasn’t about the Israel bashers. They’re still there!” He encouraged me to reach out to one of their main contributors, who privately shared his criticism of the anti-Zionism turn in reporting, but that writer has not gotten back to me yet.

If the LifeSiteNews board of directors can’t see how their dishonest reporting on the Arab-Israeli conflict is affecting readers, then they should be fired!

If LifeSiteNews editors want to maintain life on their site to report the news, they need to get back to reporting … news! All the anti-Zionist propaganda, I submit, is the real turn-off, turning off the donations and views.

The larger question remains: why publish such anti-Israeli (and thus anti-Semitic) garbage? One suspects that the site, based in Canada, is trying to placate an increasing Muslim population. Perhaps they are buying into the engagement harvesting that comes with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Whatever the reason, they need a major course-correction if they want to survive.

"Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" Tells the Truth about American Indian-European Relations

This scene does not get enough credit or attention from American conservatives and patriots generally.

The "Stolen Land" argument has been done to death, and it's time to confront the truth about the American Indians and their successors' outrageous arguments about "their stolen land."

          

• Col. Nelson Miles : Sitting Bull requested this council. We await his words.

  Sitting Bull : Take your soldiers out of here. They scare the game away.

  Col. Nelson Miles : Very well, sir. Tell me, then: how far away should I take my men?

  Sitting Bull : You must take them out of our lands.

  Col. Nelson Miles : What precisely are your lands?

  Sitting Bull : These are the lands where my people lived before you whites first came.

  Col. Nelson Miles : I don't understand. We whites were not your first enemies. Why don't you demand back the land in Minnesota where the Chippewa and others forced you from years before?

  Sitting Bull : The Black Hills are a sacred land given to my people by Wakan Tanka.

  Col. Nelson Miles : How very convenient to cloak your claims in spiritualism. And what would you say to the Mormons and others who believe that their God has given to them Indian lands in the West?

  Sitting Bull : I would say they should listen to Wakan Tanka.

  Col. Nelson Miles : No matter what your legends say, you didn't sprout from the plains like the spring grasses. And you didn't coalesce out of the ether. You came out of the Minnesota woodlands armed to the teeth and set upon your fellow man. You massacred the Kiowa, the Omaha, the Ponca, the Oto and the Pawnee without mercy. And yet you claim the Black Hills as a private preserve bequeathed to you by the Great Spirit.

  Sitting Bull : And who gave us the guns and powder to kill our enemies? And who traded weapons to the Chippewa and others who drove us from our home?

  Col. Nelson Miles : Chief Sitting Bull, the proposition that you were a peaceable people before the appearance of the white man is the most fanciful legend of all. You were killing each other for hundreds of moons before the first white stepped foot on this continent. You conquered those tribes, lusting for their game and their lands, just as we have now conquered you for no less noble a cause.

  Sitting Bull : This is your story of my people!

  Col. Nelson Miles : This is the truth, not legend. Crazy Horse has surrendered... with his entire band. And by his surrender, he says to you and your people that you are defeated. And by ceding the Black Hills to us, so say Red Cloud and the other chiefs, who demand that you end this war and take your place on the reservation.

  Sitting Bull : Red Cloud is no longer a chief. He is a woman you have mounted and had your way with. Do not speak to me of Red Cloud!

  Col. Nelson Miles : I suppose *you* are the only chief then. Sitting Bull is king of all the Indians! Now, humility is one of the four virtues of the Sioux chief. Sitting Bull shows his true nature now.

  Sitting Bull : I have had my say with you.

  Col. Nelson Miles : And I have had my say with you.

  Sitting Bull : Then we will have a fight.

  Col. Nelson Miles : So be it.

asdads

Israeli Arab Christian Denounces So-Called Palestinian Cause, Defends Is...

                          

Yosef Haddad, an Arab Christian and Israeli national, blasts the pro-"Palestinian" mob during his Oxford Union speech in defense of Israel and against the motion that Israel is an apartheid state. Here's a biographical summary from Wikipedia about Yosef Haddad: "Yoseph Haddad is an Arab-Israeli Orthodox Christian who was born in Haifa, Israel. His mother was a teacher and his father was a priest, businessman and civil aviator. Later, the family moved to Nazareth, Israel, where he attended the Don Bosco Technological High School named after Giovanni Bosco." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoseph_...) More people need to see this stellar take-down of those arrogant Oxonian SJWs! I learned things about Israel which I had never know before! I post this video under Fair Use, and I found it via this X post: https://x.com/LizaRosen0000/status/18...

Jared Taylor Is Wrong (As Usual)

Jared Taylor thinks that having dark skin makes you backward, stupid, uncivilized, or worse yet uncivilizable.

Here's his "epic" takedown against a another racialist commentator on the Young Turks:

It is so beautiful to see a well prepared man say - "it’s actually an observation" with conviction and real facts to back his stance. pic.twitter.com/V3QJRi1Q8d

— iamyesyouareno (@iamyesyouareno) October 8, 2024

Don't get me wrong: The Young Turks and their race-baiting is a crime against humanity. Their anti-white bigotry should be confronted and resisted at every turn.

However, the answer to anti-white bigotry is not anti-black bigotry. The answer to racism is not more racist, but truth.

And Mr. Taylor has a hard time with the truth.

He asserts that in Sub-Saharan Africa, there were no two-story buildings, no calendars.

Let's focus on the two-story building charge first.

Guess what? Ethiopa is part of Sub-Saharan Africa.

And guess what? They had two-story buildings:

Here's a brief commentary on this building from Wikipedia:

The eleven Rock-hewn Churches of Lalibela are monolithic churches located in the western Ethiopian Highlands near the town of Lalibela, named after the late-12th and early-13th century King Gebre Meskel Lalibela of the Zagwe dynasty, who commissioned the massive building project of 11 rock-hewn churches to recreate the holy city of Jerusalem in his own kingdom. The site remains in use by the Ethiopian Orthodox Christian Church to this day, and it remains an important place of pilgrimage for Ethiopian Orthodox worshipers.^[1] It took 24 years to build all the 11 rock hewn churches.

We are talking the 13th century, not the 20th century. This building do not arise because of European investment or imperialism.

These were Sub-Saharan Africans, and they built not one, not two, but ELEVEN mutli-story buildings.

And that's not all.

Check out the Nsude pyramids of Nigeria:

Only their remains ... remain, but these were constructions of considerable height, to be sure.

The Zaccheus Onumba Dibiaezue Memorial Library reports:

Therefore, one must marvel at the Nsude pyramids in Nsude, Enugu state, on the Onitsha–Port Harcourt expressway just before 9th mile. On the left-hand side, from Onitsha to Enugu, the area where they used to be can be seen at the foot of a low hill, densely wooded and quite distinct from the surrounding grassland.

And check out these structures in the Ivory Coast:

Consider also these constructions in the Kingdom of Mutapa, in what is now Zimbabwa:

Now let's consider Taylor's second charge, that there were no calendars.

That is another lie.

Back to Wikpedia, folks:

Ethiopian Calendar

[edit]

The Ge'ez or Ethiopian Calendar is a calendar originating from the Ethiopian Empire. It is the liturgical year for Ethiopian and Eritrean Christians belonging to the Orthodox Tewahedo Churches and closely follows the Coptic Christian calendar.

A useful chart providing all the equivalents can be found in Chaîne's book on chronology in Ethiopia and Egypt,^[55] and can easily be consulted online at the Internet Archive, from page 134 to page 172.

Nigerian Calendars

[edit]

The Igbo calendar is the traditional calendar system of the Igbo people from present-day Nigeria. The calendar has 13 months in a year (afo), 7 weeks in a month (onwa), and 4 days of Igbo market days (afor, nkwo, eke, and orie) in a week (izu) plus an extra day at the end of the year, in the last month. The name of these months was reported by Onwuejeogwu (1981). The Yoruba calendar is a calendar used by the Yoruba people of southwestern and north central Nigeria and southern Benin. The calendar has a year beginning on the last moon of May or first moon of June of the Gregorian calendar. The new year coincides with the Ifá festival. The traditional Yoruba week has four days, the four days that are dedicated to the Orisa.

Ghana/West African

[edit]

The Akan Calendar is a Calendar created by the Akan people (a Kwa group of West Africa) who appear to have used a traditional system of timekeeping based on a six-day week (known as nnanson "seven-days" via inclusive counting). The Gregorian seven-day week is known as nnawɔtwe (eight-days). The combination of these two system resulted in periods of 40 days, known as adaduanan (meaning "forty days").

Xhosa Calendar

[edit]

The traditional isiXhosa names for months of the year poetically come from names of stars, plants, and flowers that grow or seasonal changes that happen at a given time of year in Southern Africa.

The Xhosa year traditionally begins in June and ends in May when the brightest star visible in the Southern Hemisphere, Canopus, signals the time for harvesting.

Now, some may charge that these developments are irrelevant, because they were spurred on by Arab or European traders and missionaries.

If that is the case, then the whole discussion is moot, because Western and Eastern European barbaric tribes were just as backward.

What caused a real explosion of revelation, knowledge, and wisdom was the Greco-Roman innovations and insights (Reason) and Judeo-Christian Revelation. Skin color is immaterial to the matter entirely.

What caused some regions to thrive, and others to take a dive, was communication vs. isolation, trade vs. intransigence, and spiritual growth vs. stagnation. Skin color is immaterial to the matter.

For more information on the role of geography and traffick for the flourish of cultures, read Thomas Sowell's Social Justice Fallacies (2021).

Hope for Los Angeles County: Hochman Declares Victory

 

Hochman for DA Campaign Update November 6, 2024 Dear Friend: Thanks to your support, our campaign was a success, and I will become the next Los Angeles County District Attorney. I couldn’t have done it without you. Whether you made a financial contribution, attended a fundraiser or meet-and-greet, volunteered, placed a campaign sign at your home or simply encouraged friends and family to vote for me, you made a difference. I can’t wait to get to work. I pledge to work every day to make Los Angeles County a safer place to live by restoring balance in the criminal justice system, starting with eliminating the blanket policies that prohibited prosecutors from enforcing the law. Rest assured, when I take office on December 2, Los Angeles County will once again have a District Attorney dedicated to justice, fairness, and standing up for victims of crime. The good news is that the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has hundreds of the finest prosecutors in the United States. I will restore their ability to make prosecution decisions based on the facts, the law, the impact on victims, and the defendant’s background. Many of these prosecutors have been demoralized for years. It will be my job to give them the resources they need to do their jobs, standing up for justice, advocating for crime victims and helping make all of Los Angeles County a better place to live. Together, we will once again make the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office the finest local prosecuting agency in the country.  Again, thank you! With appreciation, To learn more about Nathan, visit: www.nathanhochman.com.

FREE SPEECH DEBATE: Arab-Israeli Conflict (Nick Taurus v. Arthur Schaper)

                      

Here's my full debate with Nick Taurus, a pro-Palestinian Trump supporter from Orange County, CA.

Some people consider that an oxymoron. How can someone support the Palestinian movement, since so many of them are Leftists? Of course, his side, and many of his supporters, counter that Israel and Zionism are the greatest threat 

The debate took place at the Laguna Hills Community Center on Wednesday, October 30th, 2024.

Nick reached out to me in the middle of Summer 2024. He was hoping to pair me off against another anti-Zionist speaker. He reached out to a number of left-leaning, pro-Palestinian groups, but none of them would step up.

I was glad to step in and stand for truth, stand for Israel, and expose the truth about the so-called Palestinian movement.

This was not as daunting a task, since I had debated Nick on the Arab-Israeli conflict shortly after the October 7th, 2023 Hamas massacre:

             

For the October 30th, 2024 debate, Nick provided all the questions in advance, which was great, since that gesture allowed both of us to study, research, and prepare more effectively.

He also provided ground rules, which included no interruptions. I admit that that is my weak point. CRINGE! It's true, and I can laugh at myself about that.

There were supposed to be two moderators, a pro-Zionist and an anti-Zionist, but the pro-Zionist could not make it at the last minute.

Lawrence of Europa served as the moderator, and like CBS or NBC moderators, he broke the rules and interrupted me a few times, but that conflict did not stop me from speaking out.

Some of my friends joined the event, including Rachelle Mand, a Persian Jew who fled Iran before the Ayatollah took over. Keith Hardine of South Los Angeles, John Willis of Upland (both former members of We the People Rising), and Eli Komai of the John Birch Society also attended.

It was a pleasant surprise to see Eli, who is also a friend of Nick Taurus.

GROUP PHOTOS!

The debate was fun!

It was great to stand for truth, to refute a lot of the anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist talking points.

Nick was definitely the more reserved debater, standing behind the podium the whole time. I was more active, moving around a great deal. I don't recall any rules of decorum regarding our behavior, so there is that.

I really enjoyed stepping forward and speaking to the audience directly. For the first time in a long time, I felt really confident about this subject. It was good to interact with people.

Nick referenced a great deal of books, resources, and authors. That did not bother me, since truth is truth, and if lots of information is based on a false premise, everything else is invalidated. I also referenced some books, websites, and authors. I will say this much: I want to work on memorizing more names and more sources for future debates.

Let me get the worst and the missed opportunities out of the way:

• Nick pointed out that there are Jewish people in the Biden Administration who are part of the open borders agenda. But who put them there? Joe Biden! I should have responded to that, but there were so many other things I wanted to respond to.
• He talked a great deal about "Jewish" NGOs pushing mass migration and open borders. Who funds them, though? Most of the funding comes from rich white liberal Gentiles.
• He mentioned the Appollo Affair. Yawn. I had challenged that in the last debate, in which independent American and Israeli investigations confirmed that Schlomo Solomon did not steal any uranium. A third party, Seymour Hersh, did his own investigation and wrote his findings in The Sampson Option.
• I neglected to point out that Amin al-Husseini, the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, along with other Arab interests in the Middle East and Muslims in Southeastern Europe, collaborated with the Nazis to exterminate the Jews in Europe instead of expelling them to the Middle East.

Some of the best moments (for me) in the debate:

• Pointing out that Israeli police officers arrest hyper-Orthodox Jews when they spit at Christians. That fact deflated the whole talking point from the anti-Zionists in the audience.
• Using the phrase "so-called Palestinians" and undermining the legacy and veracity of that term. It felt really good to inform the audience that Zionist founders like Golda Meir and David Ben-Gurion were also Palestinians!
• Not breaking a sweat when one of the anti-Zionist members of the audience asked me about the Haavera Transfer Agreement. At that moment, I had not heard of that phrase, although I know that Hilter initially wanted to expel the Jews to the Middle East. Instead of getting flustered, I got to the heart of the issue: "Do you think that justifies pushing 6 million Jews into ovens?" I also stated, "Whatever that is, that does not delegitimize Israel." That's what all these obscure references are really all about.
• Refuting the "Dancing Israelis" conspiracy by using the phrase "Dancing Palestinians." I wanted to underscore the reality that it's the so-called Palestinians and their Arab/Muslim allies who are harming this country. I really thank God for having that phrase on the tip of my tongue.
• Referencing Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who served in a foreign military in order to supporting allow American citizens to serve in Congress. Nick acknowledged that point as a good counter-argument, and I respect that.
• Repeating the fact that Israel offered the so-called Palestinians a state FIVE TIMES. None on the Pro-Palestinian side can bellyache about fairness or lack of return, when so-called Palestinian leaders just want to push the Jews into the sea.

My favorite moment was turning the tables on a groyper wearing an American Flag jacket during the Question and Answer period. I think his name was Andrew, although I could be wrong. He referenced the Lavon Affair, which is a common anti-Zionist talking point. He went off about the USS Liberty, which I had mentioned before he did. He tried to interrupt me a few times, but I was relentless in pushing back on the anti-Zionist tropes. 

I really like that I held him accountable for exploiting those veterans, and I also like that I could get the truth out about Lyndon Baines Johnson, one of the most consequential--and the worst--Presidents in our country's history.

Frankly, I think that the biggest problem for many of these anti-Zionist guys is that people simply do not let them talk, and they do not respond with simple facts or evidence. People get easily offended because of the controversial nature of the subject and just shut off all discussion. That is not the way to win (back) hearts and minds.

I liked that I was able to confront other anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in the audience, and Lawrence could not stop me. The whole situation reminded me of JD Vance, when he confronted the CBS moderator for "fact-checking" him, when the corporate media moderators were just lying. Nick backed me up when the moderator got out of line, which helped a great deal.

Post-debate was great, too. A number of people came up to me and thanked me for coming, including the pro-Palestinian groyper (?) wearing an American flag on his jacket. He came up to me and shook my hand, praising me for stepping into hostile territory and taking a stand for Israel.

I let him share his views on "The Jews did 9-11," and I was able to refute his arguments. 

              

 I think it's quite telling that during the Question and Answer period, Nick did not want to spend too much time responding to his question about invading and destroying Israel. Even for anti-Zionists, the American-Flag jacket guy's arguments were way too much!

Nick was very magnanimous and praised me efforts after the debate. I am grateful that I could come and speak up, too!