4 July in the Land of the Free, the Mother of Parliaments and the Only Democracy in the ME, Part 4

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Editorial note:

It has been three mind-numbing weeks since 4 July. Events have been moving so fast, especially over the last few days, that I’ve had to abandon the draft of Part 4 so many times and start again, even missing my Friday deadline. So buckle up: this is a long one.

Just how close did it come? In the case of Donald Trump, about a centimetre. In the case of civilisation, possibly closer. The Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, J.D. Vance, joked that Britain is the first nuclear-armed Islamic state. Those entertained by the idea failed to realise, firstly, that a nuclear-armed Islamic state is far from a laughing matter, and secondly, just how close the US has come to being a nuclear-armed Islamic state herself.

Since the publication of Part 3, Donald Trump has chosen James David Vance as his Vice-Presidential running mate. My immediate question was: what does this mean for Israel? I quote at length from Vance’s statement on US involvement in Israel:

“It’s not just the fact that Americans care about Israel for religious reasons. There actually is a hard strategic argument we can make for why we should care about Israel, too. Let me just make a couple of points on that topic.

First Israel is one of the most dynamic, certainly on a per capita basis, one of the most dynamic, technologically-advanced countries in the world. Dan Senor [and Saul Singer] wrote about this in the book, The Startup Nation, and if you look at what Israel is doing just with the iron beam system, for example. This is a system that would allow America and our allies to actually achieve some parity with the people who are sending drones and rocket attacks and so forth. There is no way that we can, long-term, fight a missile defence battle against people, if they’re paying 1/10th or 1/100th for offensive weapons [of what] we are paying for defensive weapons. The Israelis are doing the most important work to actually give us missile defence parity. That’s a very important National Security objective in the United States of America, and that’s something we’re working with one of the most innovative economies in the world to accomplish.

[…]

I think we have a real opportunity to ensure that Israel is an ally in the true sense: that they’re going to pursue their interests and sometimes those interests won’t totally overlap with the United States and that’s totally reasonable, but they are fundamentally self-sufficient. I think the way that we get there in Israel is actually by combining the Abraham Accords approach with the defeat of Hamas. That gets us to a place where Israel and the Sunni nations[1] can play a regional counterweight to Iran. Again, we don’t want to get involved in a broader regional war.

The best way to do that is to ensure that Israel with the Sunni nations can actually police their own region of the world and that allows us to spend less time and less resources on the Middle East and focus more on Asia, in the same way that we want our own allies to do the job in Europe, so that we can focus on East Asia. I think the same is true of the Sunni nations and Israel in the Middle East. So they’re going to have to pick up more of the regional security apparatus, but the Israelis can’t do that, unless they defeat Hamas.

There an interesting thing, which is why we should be supporting them in the war to finish Hamas’s military capabilities. You can’t possibly defeat Hamas as an ideology. Well, you can’t defeat Islamic radicalism as an ideology, and it was stupid for us to try to build democracies in the Middle East. But you can defeat ISIS as a functioning military apparatus. You can defeat Al-Qaeda as a functioning military apparatus.

There is no way for the Abraham Accords to take off, which allows us to step away from the Middle East, unless Israel defeats Hamas as a functional military apparatus and builds some real alliances with the Sunni states. That, to me, is the goal of American foreign policy in the Middle East. That’s why we should be doing something much different in Israel, than we should be in Ukraine. Maybe you disagree with that; [I’d be] happy to have that conversation.[2]

This is all a major, major, relief. On Vance’s approach to Israel, Jonathan Tobin says:

Vance’s opposition to continuing the funding of an endless war in Ukraine, which is eating up resources that might better be spent on aiding Israel, stopping Iran and deterring China, is disqualifying for some on the right who are still obsessed with Russia. They wrongly believe that putting so much of our resources into Ukraine will magically strengthen Israel and Taiwan. But his critics have no answer to his arguments about the need for America to pick and choose its fights carefully in an era when its capacity to produce arms is no longer unlimited.[3]

I have to state immediately that I am not familiar with everything that J.D. Vance has to say on the subject, but I think that Tobin sees it too narrowly. Certainly, Europe, while looking down its collective nose at America, has basked in their superior wisdom that their voluntary disarmament and deindustrialisation have shown their peaceful intentions to Russia and convinced it to reciprocate. Why waste money on the obsolete NATO project? The sneering and snobbish disdain with which European politicians reacted to Donald Trump’s raising the NATO funding issue spoke volumes, after all, Trump was not merely a crude businessman, but an idiot, a joke, not quite our class.

While Trump and Vance will be doing both Europe and Ukraine a favour by drastically reducing funding for the war, the claim of many in the US that the funding is a squandering of resources is not the fault of Ukraine, but of the US itself. You cannot give Ukraine billions of dollars’ worth of weapons on condition that they do not use the weapons to their full capacity, and then blame Ukraine for an endless war! It is disingenuous of J.D. Vance to speak of an "endless war" in Ukraine, when it has been the US preventing Ukraine from ending the war, something that Israelis will be well familiar with. Had Ukraine been free to use those US weapons effectively, it is very possible that the war could have been over by now.

Ukraine has had to waste over a year and large amounts of her very scarce resources to develop her own capacity to strike deep into Russia. The Russian society, economy and military are extremely fragile, even before sanctions. The society has always lacked integration and it still does, albeit in a different form. It scares the world through bluster, deceit and intimidation. This much is obvious to any political economist. Is it inconceivable that Ukraine, free to use what it receives as it sees fit, could have brought Russia to its knees by now?

I would not be so offensive as to suggest that J.D. Vance is Donald Trump’s brain, but the former President did pick his running mate as a sounding board he can trust, and we can look forward to subtler and sounder policies coming out of the White House come January, if current trends are anything to go by. The Europeans are not the only ones intimidated by Russia, the Biden Administration is, too, at least, by Russian nuclear weapons. It is not that they fear that Russia might use them, but that they might lose them. A possible outcome of a Ukraine victory over Russia could be the territorial disintegration of Russia, with nuclear weapons ending up in the hands of unknown and unstable potentates. How about a nice Trumpian solution to that: instead of trying to purchase Greenland, buy all of Russia’s nuclear weapons from their new owners, who would not have the wherewithal to maintain them, anyway. They would find themselves in a similar position to that of Ukraine in 1990, only much worse, given their landlocked and underdeveloped condition.

While Israeli retired generals relied on the Biden Administration to help them further their aim of destroying Israel and handing the Jews on a platter to the Palestinians to do with as they see fit, US retired generals have just reissued their wake-up open letter urging a reaffirmation of the importance of supporting Israel. “In these challenging times, we reaffirm our friendship and bond with the State of Israel—and urge all Americans to stand by our close friend and partner.” How Israel could draw on an intervention of such gravitas, respond to Vance’s perspective, and take advantage of the disarray in the Biden Administration, are what Jonathan Tobin could have explored.

Sometimes, a President does not have to lose an election to become a lame duck. Israel has just under four months in which to do exactly as she wants. The IAF attack on the Yemeni port of Al-Hudaydah two days ago is a hopeful sign of Israeli recognition that her hands are no longer tied. Israel is now free to offer Palestinians safe passage out of Gaza to anywhere on earth, free to restore Jews to Gaza, free to cancel the Oslo Accords and free to make Israel great again. “God saved Donald Trump,” exclaimed Yishai Fleischer. He might just be right. This time, don’t blow it.

When the current Israeli government was elected, Israel descended into near-chaos, the Western media screamed “The End of the World!” because the people of Israel dared to elect a government the all-but-defeated West did not approve of. Overturning election results presented itself as something everyone could try at home. The Western media, politicians and talking heads, and much more so the Israeli Left, lost their minds over not only Benjamin Netanyahu, but also over the enfants terribles, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, particularly the latter, at the highest table. Every single detail about them justified their immediate excommunication, or, in more modern terms, their unpersoning. The United States government treated the elected government of its supposed most important ally with utter contempt. The Israeli electorate was being punished for disrupting the globalist agenda, foreshadowing the US electorate doing the same. Their punishment is the destruction of their leader by any means. France... Britain... Germany...

In 2006, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir had nailed their colours to the mast as participants in the infamous Beast Pride, a protest against homosexuality. There is no question of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir’s distaste for gays, gay life, and in particular, same-sex marriage. They have since “toned down the rhetoric,” and their disapproval of “abomination” does not stop them from cooperating with a gay Speaker of Knesset, married to a man, no less. Similarly, the front-runner in the current election for the Vice-Presidency of the United States, J.D. Vance, does not agree with same-sex marriage. Their view on homosexuality is neither a crime, nor does it make them immoral. The only relevant question is whether their views make them any less qualified for the particular roles they hold or aspire to. The answer is an unequivocal “no”.

I raise this not only because I am a woman married to a woman, but because I had to think this issue through very carefully. If I were Israeli, I would add my support to Smotrich and Ben-Givr, because my distaste for their personal views should have no bearing on whether I consider them, or anyone else, the best persons for their roles. Likewise, J.D. Vance is, in my estimation, far and away the most qualified person for the role of Vice-President of the United States, and is bright and able enough to, within four years, be ready for a somewhat more demanding role.

J.D. Vance’s background, articulacy, qualification and extraordinary vision together achieved several political, social and cultural hits in one go. The Democrat propaganda machine, and Democrat voters at large, see it as one of their party’s strengths that they are able to have not only a woman, Kamala Harris, but one “of color,” as their Vice-President. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), and especially colour, are sacrosanct to them. According to Democrat virtue-signalling criteria, Harris is eminently-qualified for the role of President of the United States. That she is, by any other criterion, singularly unsuited to be Commander-in-Chief is entirely irrelevant. California Governor Gavin Newsom is equally unqualified for the role, even if his responses to question are less of a public embarrassment. But the Democrats could not possibly commit the outrage of fielding the less embarrassing Newson, a white male, in preference over Harris (Newsom’s “modesty” in turning down the opportunity to lose against Trump notwithstanding). The fact that Harris actually wants to run against Trump attests to her being even more vain than she is stupid.

Donald Trump’s pick of J.D. Vance, a white male, as his Vice-Presidential running mate is very cruel karma for the Democrats, a red-meat taunt to which they can do nothing more than watch. Not only did Trump not even blink at the virtue-signalling imperative for a “person of color,” such thinking is simply irrelevant to him. There are still those who accuse Trump of being racist, this despite the frequency with which Trump compliments people with “He did a good job,” or “She did a good job.” To him, meritocracy matters, and besides, his chosen VP hates affirmative action. The fact that Trump, after considering everything, has chosen a white male for Vice-President is stronger proof than any that Donald Trump is not racist.

Most Democrat voters, or any woke person for that matter, will struggle to even understand the point I’ve just made. Since Joe Biden’s unsuitability for the role of President of the United States finally burst into the open, there have been many black Democrat talking heads who argued angrily that mindless Kamala Harris’s black skin would be a terrible thing to waste, almost in that many words. It took eighty years to come to the antipode of “A mind is a terrible thing to waste,” the maxim of the United Negro College Fund, founded in 1944 to address the scarcity of educational resources accessible to black Americans (the scholarships have since become available to everyone). One white person who might well have qualified for a UNCF scholarship is none other than the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, J.D. Vance.

The woke intellectuals and academics cannot go after Vance, the consummate hillbilly deplorable, because they would simply highlight their own contempt for the forgotten white working class, especially in the rust-belt, barely surviving on misery and heroine or fentanyl (the latter thanks to China). Furthermore, to Western academics, it is inconceivable that anyone else could have answers to the great questions of the day. Answers, by definition, come from them.

The Democrats’ hopeless, cringe-inducing woman-of-color Vice-President, Kamala Harris, is now going to have to face off against a formidable deplorable, unless she replaces Biden as the candidate for President. The Democrats can choose between having their DEI pick demolished by J.D. Vance, or taken apart by Donald Trump. And as if to add insult to injury, the potential next First Lady is of the same ethnic heritage as Harris, and the Republicans are making nothing of her skin colour at all, right before their eyes. And in those woke eyes, the Republicans are conspicuously wasting a virtue signal that the Democrats would lose their party for, rubbing their faces in it, so to speak. Perhaps Americans will finally begin to see what they have squandered in their headlong rush to take the knee before the god of diversity.

Jonathan Tobin says of Donald Trump, “He was opposed to the woke ideological policies that sought to divert Americans from the real economic problems faced by working people to divisive fake concerns about racism.” I agree, and would add that the fake concerns over racism also diverted Americans from the real economic, social and military challenges presented by Islam and China. Racism plays the same diverting role in America as climate change does in Europe. They turn society against itself in the face of hostile takeover.

Across the pond, Keir Starmer grapples with a dilemma of a different kind, but no less of his own making. He finds his Labour Party caught in the middle of a Muslim right-side-of-history scramble. The right side in question is that of jihad. Now that Muslims in the House of Commons no longer need their Trojan Horses, how do those Muslims in the Labour Party redeem themselves for still being in the Labour Party, not only despite the Muslim Vote’s November 2023 call to Muslims to stand as independents on an anti-Semitic ticket, but also despite their party leader being married to a Jew, his actively participating in the Jewish rituals and his children being raised Jewish? I struggle with how a man who is clearly not anti-Semitic juggles between keeping nice with profoundly anti-Semitic Muslims who have him over a barrel, and doing the right thing by Israel. How does he reconcile these? The British Prime Minister cannot be a happy man.

The rules of engagement in jihad, the war against the infidel, have changed, both inside Parliament and outside of it. Inside Parliament, it will not be enough for Muslim Labour Party MPs to simply abstain from taking sides in the explicit politics that is about to break out in the House of Commons. If you think Ilhan Omar was bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet. If Labour’s Muslim MPs did not engage in open jihad, then their offices, their staff, their supporters, their property and their loved ones outside of Parliament will all be in peril. Shari’a, the only law that the new “independent” MPs respect, and that they expect Labour’s “moderate” Muslims to equally respect, mandates gangs of Muslims to turn up at their offices and houses, ransack their property and brutally intimidate their staff and households, all in the name of commanding the right and forbidding the wrong. They all know this. Only the naïve kufaar do not.

That’s a lot to suddenly have to make up for, and Muslim Labour MP Apsana Begum is getting in first to prove her allegiance to the cause of Allah. She went straight for her boss, tweeting:

This is an awful response from Keir and lacks any acknowledgement of the need to build trust amongst British Muslims who feel that Labour has let them down. Labour position on Gaza - especially Starmer's infamous comments about Israel's right to cut off electricity to Gaza - came up over and over again during the election across the country and clearly lost Labour votes. There is no doubt that lots of voters have serious concerns about Starmer's record on Gaza, Islamophobia and migration, amongst a number of other issues. This was an opportunity for Keir to assure British Muslims he was listening. An opportunity ignored.

Quite a lot can be said about this passage. But I shall confine myself to, one, pointing out that they are always British Muslims, never Muslim Britons, and two, saying there is nothing explicitly anti-Semitic in Begum’s attack. It is all couched in terms of sympathy for the poor let-down Muslim voters and vague hints of Starmer going soft on “Islamophobia”. Begum’s veiled threat: “This [election] was an opportunity for Keir to assure British Muslims he was listening. An opportunity ignored” echos the other Shari’a mandate of offering non-Muslims the opportunity to convert to Islam, the ignoring of which results in death. When Muslims are honest, they almost always fall into the syntax of Shari’a.

The Shari’a takeover of Britain is proceeding in Parliament through Muslims becoming the sole concern of UK politics, its only priority. Outside of Parliament, the same. Multicultural Britain is about to find out, in a very brutal way, that only Muslim lives matter. An ITV political correspondent, Shahab (?) Khan interviewed Sir Keir Starmer shortly after the General Election of 4 July:

Prime Minister, you secured a significant landslide at the general election, but in areas where there’s a high Muslim population, Labour either lost seats or had their vote-share slashed. Do you accept that there’s a problem with the relationship between the Labour Party and British Muslims at the moment?

It is unlikely that the Council for American-Islamic Relations came to Keir Starmer's mind. He replied:

Well, the first thing I’d say is that very many people voted Labour in the General Election who've never voted Labour before. So we now hold seats in parts of the country that have never had a Labour MP. So this is an incredibly strong mandate. Of course, wherever we weren’t able to secure votes, I’m concerned about that. But this is a clear mandate for change, for renewal, for a different way of doing politics, and a return of politics to service. The days of self-entitlement and self-interest are over and I'm really pleased to put a strong team on the pitch to start our work and to be completing here in Wales. My visits to Scotland, to Northern Ireland and Wales, which is—

The Muslim interviewer cut him off:

What about the issue with British Muslims? Trust has clearly broken down, there. The election results show that. What are you going to do to try and rebuild it?

What Starmer should have said, instead of ever-so-meekly repeating himself, is simply: “Muslims are not the only voters.” Better than that would have been to say, “Our constituencies are geographical, not religious. MPs represent the voters in their constituency, and no one outside of it.” A Muslim, of course, would not get the message, so Starmer might say, “I’ve heard that Gaza is the biggest issue for Muslims, and that they elected MPs on the basis of their willingness to fight for Gaza. They should have checked before they did this, because Gaza is not a Parliamentary constituency in Britain. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point them to where they have to get themselves elected if they want to represent Gaza.” They’ll still not get it, in fact, they’re likely to take offence, in which case Starmer might say, “By the way, if the local Council doesn’t fix the roads in their constituency, whom do their constituents turn to?” But it will be in vain, because a Muslim MP is unlikely to understand this question. Perhaps it was best for Starmer just to repeat that he had, “an incredibly strong mandate.”

On election night, as the results came in, Penny Mordaunt, Conservative former MP, after she had lost her seat, was philosophical: “Democracy is never wrong.” Let us see what she says as Muslim MPs start taking that democracy apart and replacing it with Shari’a. None other than the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, set the demolition of democracy in motion. One of his first acts was to appoint as his Secretary of State for Justice—wait for it—Muslim MP Shabana Mahmood. And what does Shari’a require of judges? Judges must be lenient towards the Muslims and harsh towards the infidels.

If this sounds familiar, then readers might recall the Eurabia demands that the Arab League placed upon the European Union, that judges be lenient in their sentencing of Muslim criminals, and as we all know, they complied, in some countries, such as Germany, eagerly. Keir Starmer was not going to “ignore the opportunity to assure British Muslims” twice (that’s the government’s job now). Convicted ringleader of a Muslim paedophile rape gang, Mohammed Imran Ali Akhtar, offered just that opportunity. On 24 May 2024, less than two months ago, The Independent reports:

A gang leader sentenced for sexually exploiting children in Rotherham has been convicted of another rape after a new victim came forward. Mohammed Imran Ali Akhtar, 42, who was already serving 23 years for child sex abuse crimes, was handed a 12-year prison term on Friday. He was jailed in 2018 for sexually abusing three vulnerable victims between 1998 and 2005.

On Friday, at Sheffield Crown Court, he was sentenced for the sexual abuse of another victim between 2001 and 2003. The victim, who was aged 13 to 14 at the time, came forward after reading about Akhtar’s arrest in 2018. The court heard the victim was a “very vulnerable girl living in difficult circumstances” at the time she was abused.

Judge Sarah Wright said Akhtar targeted his victim in Rotherham town centre by calling her over to his car and started to groom her by giving her alcohol and drugs. Akhtar engaged in sexual activity with the girl four or five times a week for about a year in his car and an apparently empty house in Rotherham.

The court said the prison term will run concurrently with his existing sentence. (My emphasis)

So, not only will this paedophile gang-rapist ringleader not do time for raping the victim who had come forward when he was already in prison, within a week of the government assuming office, there were reports, which I have been unable to confirm, that Mohammed Imran Ali Akhtar is about to be released from prison.

The pathetic, ludicrous, ridiculous cover for releasing all Muslim inmates, including the hundreds involved in gang-raping kafir women, of whom Akhtar is merely the first, is prison overcrowding, suddenly a national priority, that will see all prisoners who have served 40% of their sentence put back on the streets, and this is confirmed.

Keir Starmer never stops repeating that he has “a clear mandate for change.” Britons might be interested to know some of the lovely changes they can now look forward to from their new Secretary of State for Justice (all emphases are mine):

[Shari’a is] the final and universal moral code for all peoples until the end of time. “Whoso does not judge by what Allah has revealed, those are the unbelievers” (Qur’an 5:44). It is an enormity (402) “for a judge to please people with what Allah Most High detests." (Reliance of the Traveller, Book W29.3)[4]

For a Muslim judge to not judge according to Shari’a is to cease to be Muslim.

Then will We treat the Muslims like the criminals? What is the matter with you? How do you judge? Or do you have a scripture in which you learn that indeed for you is whatever you choose? (Qur’an 68:35-38)

If it is not a crime in Shari’a, then it is not a crime. When Muslims proclaim: “Islam must dominate”, “Democracy go to Hell!” and “Freedom go to Hell!” they are not expressing opinions.

Islam prescribes stoning for the married adulterer, cutting off the hand for the thief, and flogging for the one who slanders the honour of a woman who is chaste (all following due process, of course). We do not feel ashamed of these laws; rather, we firmly believe that the whole world is in need of application of these laws. If they do that, they will live in an atmosphere of safety with regard to their honour, their wealth and their lives, safe from transgressions against them. (Islam QA website)

The paragraph just quoted is not from the Islamic holy texts, but from a contemporary Western Muslim source.

The judge treats two litigants impartially, seating both in places of equal honour, attending to each, and so forth, unless one is a non-Muslim, in which case he gives the Muslim a better seat. He may not treat either litigant rudely, nor prompt one as to how to state his case. (RoT, Book O22.12)

“He may not treat either litigant rudely, etc.,” comes with the same caveat: “unless one is a non-Muslim.”

Legal testimony is only acceptable from a witness who: is religious, meaning upright and Muslim, for Allah Most High says, “Let those of rectitude among you testify” (Qur’an 65:2) and unbelief [not being Muslim, AP] is the vilest form of corruption, as goes without saying. (RoT, Book O24.2)

Uncomfortable seating and spoken to rudely is nothing, when considering that a non-Muslim may not testify in his own defence.

Nor is testimony acceptable from someone [a Muslim, AP] who:
(1) has committed an enormity, meaning something severely threatened against in an unequivocal text from the Koran or hadith. Though if someone who commits such an act then repents and is felt to be sincere in this, he regains his legal uprightness and his testimony is accepted… (RoT, O24.3)

This illustrates the standard of law in Shari’a, even for Muslims. If the crime is “an enormity,” the accused may not defend himself, unless he first confesses to the crime.

(2) persists in a lesser sin, because it then becomes an enormity, as opposed to when one does not persist therein. A lesser sin is one that has not been severely threatened against in an unequivocal text. (RoT, O24.3)

Neither rape nor paedophilia are severely threatened against in an unequivocal text. Rape and paedophilia would, therefore, be lesser sins, except for the fact that neither of them are sins at all. As far as Muslims are concerned, it is an outrage, a profound injustice, that Muslims should be sitting in jail for rape. This is why, to me, the sudden “prison overcrowding” smells of a secret Muslim Vote demand (“there is more”), pressed on Keir Starmer as a Number One priority, or else...

It [is] invalid to appoint a non-Muslim (kafir) to authority, even to rule non-Muslims. (RoT, Book O25.3 (a))

For now, Muslims tolerate Keir Starmer as Prime Minister, while he remains a useful idiot. As for the Courts, only a Muslim may sit in judgement over Muslims (and a Muslim may only judge according to Shari’a; almost all crimes that Muslims are currently in Western prisons for are not crimes, according to Shari’a, hence my suspicion of the sudden discovery of “prison overcrowding” that must immediately be alleviated).

Three days ago, 18 July 2024, Muslims attempted to drive the writ of the British state out of parts of Leeds, in the north of England, and London. In Leeds, they did this by calmly setting a double-decker bus ablaze, without making any attempt to hide their faces. No problem. The new Secretary of State for Justice in Keir Starmer’s government is a Muslim. Then they rioted and drove out the police. In London, Muslims fought pitched battles with the police, seizing back from them those Muslims they had dared to arrest. The day before, they raised the green flag of jihad over Marble Arch Station in Central London. The Prime Minister, the government and democracy have all been put on notice. While Britain burns, the docile populace complains of two-tier policing, the true legacy of eighty years of Labour Party welfare state.

Finally, amidst all the hard analyses of events over the last almost three weeks, and the Western descent into moral madness, it is easy to forget that a tiny nation on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean has been locked in nine months of deep grief. So insane has the world become that for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 7 October is the date from which Muslims started having a really hard time! Murtadd to Human makes an appeal: that the horror, the barbarism, the massacre, the pogrom, the murder, the rape, the dismemberment, the utter, utter sadism and savagery that Muslims had perpetrated on Israel on 7 October and celebrated globally since, never by downplayed, couched in euphemism, or caused to be forgotten. 7 October defines our lifetimes. We were alive when it happened. Our children and grandchildren are fully entitled to interrogate us about were we stood on this matter, even whether we were complicit.

Ten days that changed the world. The historic role of Donald J. Trump has been to clear the way for James David Vance, a warrior monk and philosopher king rolled into one. It spells the end of “white privilege”, the end of “Islamophobia”, the end of “a combination of Fascisms” and the end of the twin insanities of unilateral disarmament and laissez-faire deindustrialisation. All that Trump has to do now, is make it through to 20 January 2025. I’d say civilisation might have just dodged a bullet.

Notes:

1. The relationships and dynamic interplay between Arab, Muslim, nation, state and tribe are much more complex than comes across from the way Vance lays it out here. He is serious enough for it to be expected that he will take this question seriously. It is a question that greatly exercised Ze’ev Jabotinsky. Not so, most contemporary Israelis.
2. “J.D. Vance on a Foreign Policy for the Middle Class”, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, YouTube, 28 May 2024 https://youtu.be/VVzoZwoU_RY
3. Jonathan S. Tobin, “Understanding the importance of J.D. Vance”, Arutz7, 18 July 2024 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/393272
4. Umdat as-Salik wa ’Uddat an-Nasik (Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper) is a 14^th century Shari’a manual of the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence. There are at least two versions of 1990 English language edition, both have significant redactions and interpolations into the text, despite claiming to be complete translations and verified as such by the religious authorities of Al-Azhar University in Cairo. I have made every effort to avoid these corruptions. If any flipped through the net, that is down to me.

Picture credits:

Screenshots from https://jinsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/JINSA_Israel_at_war_Open_Letter_514.pdf

Screenshot from *BREAKING* Trump survives Assassination Attempt during rally, Depressed Ginger, YouTube, 14 July 2024 https://youtu.be/hN6eCds_Aro

Screenshot from "WTF London - Tommy calls for CALM", Paul Thorpe, YouTube, 18 July 2024, https://youtu.be/o4HMRWl2qOU

STOP PRESS:

A friend in Israel made me aware of Melanie Phillips: The case for Israel. Unfortunately, time did not allow for its incorporation into the text. I highly recommend it to readers.

Comments:

On 22 July 2024 at 10:22, Ben Dor A. wrote:

Dear Anjuli Pandavar,

Long but worth every moment.

Shared with friends relatives and Quora.

Best Regards
Ben Dor A