Melanie Phillips, Londonistan

*BUMPED.*

Given today's events, it's a good time to re-post her book.

At Amazon, Londonistan.

Melanie Phillips, Londonistan

Following-up from earlier today, "Melanie Phillips Braves Berkeley (VIDEO)."

At Amazon, Melanie Phillips, Londonistan.

Melanie Phillips Braves Berkeley (VIDEO)

There's video at the link, "Melanie at Berkeley":

I’m on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley, where conservative speakers are being systematically censored by violent protests designed to prevent them from speaking. I am on Sproul plaza in the centre of the campus, where free speech was supposedly enshrined back in the sixties but where it is now appallingly being suppressed.

This is the campus where conservative views are called fascism and shouted down. As you can see from these posters on this campus noticeboard.

This is where Jewish students in particular are being intimidated by threatening pro-Palestinian demonstrators. I was originally asked to speak at Berkeley Hillel, the Jewish student centre here. But remarkably, even that was considered too dangerous for me.

So I spoke instead to Jewish students at another, more discreet centre. These students had to be personally coaxed to attend my meeting – because Jewish students at Berkeley are now too frightened for their own safety to attend pro-Israel presentations. That is the truly shocking state of affairs in this prestigious seat of learning today...

More.

Hat Tip: Blazing Cat Fur.

Melanie Phillips, Londonistan

At Amazon, Melanie Phillips, Londonistan.

The suicide bombings carried out in London in 2005 by British Muslims revealed an enormous fifth column of Islamist terrorists and their sympathizers. Under the noses of British intelligence, London has become the European hub for the promotion, recruitment and financing of Islamic terror and extremism - so much so that it has been mockingly dubbed Londonistan. In this ground-breaking book Melanie Phillips pieces together the story of how Londonistan developed as a result of the collapse of traditional English identity and accommodation of a particularly virulent form of multiculturalism. Londonistan has become a country within the country and not only threatens Britain but its special relationship with the U.S. as well.

Londonistan

I haven't been reading Melanie Phillips' commentaries much lately. She's certainly one of the best conservative commentators on Israel, terrorism, and related items, but she got attacked by leftists, had legal issues, and moderated her views as a result. The whole thing was kinda of sad. I think she even attacked Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, or some such thing. I'd have to Google it. Maybe later.

Still worth a read, whatever the case.

At Amazon, Londonistan.

As Trauma Grips France, Government Faces Questions Over Intelligence Lapses

At the New York Times (FWIW), "As Trauma Grips France, Government Faces Questions Over Intelligence Lapses":

PARIS — With twin hostage dramas at different ends of Paris by armed jihadists who have killed at least 13 people and traumatized France, the government faced gaping questions on Friday over the failure to thwart such brazen attacks, especially on a well-known target like the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.

The French intelligence services knew that striking the newspaper and its editor, for their vulgar treatment of the Prophet Muhammad, had been a stated goal of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, through its propaganda journal, Inspire. And they had the Kouachi brothers, Saïd, 34, and Chérif, 32, on their radar as previously involved in jihad-related activities, for which Chérif went to jail in 2008.

The French apparently also knew, or presumably should have known, either on their own or through close intelligence cooperation with the United States, that Saïd had traveled in 2011 to Yemen, where news reports on Friday said he had met with the American-born Anwar al-Awlaki, a member and propagandist for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, who was later killed by an American drone strike.

But Yemen has been an American, not a French priority, intelligence analysts said on Friday. And with French security concentrating on the 1,000 to 2,000 French citizens who have traveled to fight in Iraq and Syria against the Syrian regime or with the Islamic State, it was likely that the Kouachi brothers and their friends — including Amedy Coulibaly, the man said to be involved in the second hostage taking — were put lower on the priority list, the analysts said.

But such reasoning did not answer the basic questions about why the French had not monitored the Kouachi brothers more aggressively, what the brothers were doing between 2011 and now, and why Charlie Hebdo was not better protected. And it raised the question of whether there had been a spectacular failure in American-French intelligence cooperation.

“The problem we face is that even though there are not that many radicalized Muslims in France, there are enough of them to make it difficult to physically follow everyone with a suspicious background,” said Camille Grand, a former French official and director of the Foundation for Strategic Research, a Paris-based group. “It’s one thing to listen to the phone calls or watch their travel, but it’s another to put someone under permanent physical surveillance, or even follow all their phone conversations full time for so many people.”

There simply are not enough police and security officials to keep full monitoring on everyone who goes through prison, said Jean-Charles Brisard from the French Center for Analysis of Terrorism, who had spoken to French security officials. The authorities had Chérif Kouachi under surveillance “for a period of time, but then they judged that there was no threat, or the threat was lower, and they had other priorities,” he said...

Western Complacency and Denial to Remain Unscathed After #CharlieHebdo Attacks

From Melanie Phillips, at the Jerusalem Post, "As I See It: The Paris massacre and Western funk":

Is this a tipping point? Has the West finally been shaken out of its complacency? The horrific massacre in Paris, in which al-Qaida terrorists systematically targeted and gunned down journalists, cartoonists, and policemen at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in revenge for its mockery of Islam, has shocked Europe by its barbarism and its symbolism.

A core western value, freedom of expression, was snuffed out with contemptuous ease along with 12 innocent lives, among them some of France’s most iconic and beloved cartoonists.

The emotion behind the “Je Suis Charlie” demonstrations, as an expression of solidarity with the murdered Charlie Hebdo staff, was very understandable. But did anyone actually mean it? For what Charlie Hebdo did was what very few people have ever done. In continuing to publish its scurrilous images of Islam and Islamists, Charlie Hebdo had refused to be cowed by Islamist terrorism.

Plainly, therefore, very few people indeed mean “Je Suis Charlie,” since the media response to the massacre has been carefully to obliterate the images Charlie Hebdo published that so offended al-Qaida.

The French have also been declaring defiantly that free speech will never be surrendered. But there has been no free media expression about Islam ever since the 1989 Iranian fatwa calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie over his book, The Satanic Verses.

That was when the West sold the pass. In Britain, people supporting Rushdie’s murder were never prosecuted.

As his book was burned on British streets, establishment figures turned on the author for having offended Islam.

In 2006, riots following the publication of the Prophet Muhammad cartoons left scores dead around the world. But virtually every media outlet – except for Charlie Hebdo – refused to republish them.

In 2004, the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered on a Netherlands street for making a film criticizing Islam. In 2012, Lars Hedegaard, who founded the Danish Free Press Society after the Muhammad cartoons affair,was shot point blank on his doorstep, although he miraculously survived.

To all these outrages, the West responded by blaming the victims for provoking their attackers. After this week’s Paris massacre, commentators on CNN observed that Charlie Hebdo had been “provoking Muslims” for some time. On The Financial Times website, Tony Barber wrote that “some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo... which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.”

(That last clause was subsequently removed).

The fact is that Islamic terrorism and intimidation against the West have been going on for decades, matched by displays of Western weakness which merely encourage an enemy it refuses properly to identify.

Over and over again, the West denies that these attacks have anything to do with Islam. First it blamed poverty and exclusion among Muslims. Then it blamed grievances around the world – Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine.

Then it blamed isolated madmen whose Muslim identity was irrelevant.

In France before Christmas, attacks in which cars were used as battering rams against crowds amid shouts of “Allahu akbar” were said by French authorities to be unconnected with each other.

Yet Muslim violence in France has clearly been out of control for years. Just look at the repeated Islamic pogroms against French Jews, which have driven thousands of them to emigrate. Yet none of those attacks provoked the kind of outrage that followed this week’s atrocity. Is free speech more important than the lives of French Jews? But the West refuses to join up the dots. The Charlie Hebdo attackers shouted “Allahu akbar” and “We are avenging the Prophet Muhammad.”

Yet Obama, Cameron, and Hollande condemned the attack as merely “terrorism,” carefully omitting to say what kind of terrorism this was.

This follows their absurd statements that the Islamic State terrorist group has “nothing to do with Islam” and that “no religion” condones that kind of barbarism.

Really? What links Islamic State, al-Qaida, Hamas, and Boko Haram? It’s a religion beginning with the letter I and ending with M.

A very senior British civil servant once told me that Islamist terrorism couldn’t be about Islam, because that would “demonize” all Muslims. This absurd non-sequitur was like saying the Inquisition had nothing to do with Catholicism, in order not to demonize Catholics.

For sure, many Muslims are not only opposed to Islamist terrorism but are its principal victims. But to pretend that it is not rooted in a legitimate interpretation of the religion, backed up by the historical evidence of centuries of aggressive and violent Islamic conquest, is ridiculous.

If the West cannot even bring itself to acknowledge what it is up against, then it will surely be defeated by it...

Still more.

Presbyterians Join the Anti-Israel Choir

From Professor Jonathan Marks, at WSJ.

Read it at the link.

And at Free Beacon, "CNN Anchors Rip Presbyterian Official Over BDS Vote." I watched it. This Heath Rada, "moderator of the Presbyterian church’s 2014 General Assembly," either has no clue or is a consummate liar. Actually, it's probably a sick combination of both. He keeps backing off when pushed on the "apartheid" language his group's publications use to attack Israel. This isn't something that you can go halfway on, as BDS itself is clearly an anti-Semitic movement not to promote peace but the destruction of the Jewish state.

In any case, more from Yair Rosenberg, at Tablet, "Presbyterian Church USA Narrowly Approves Divestment."

PREVIOUSLY: "Presbyterian Church U.S.A. Votes to Divest from Israeli Companies."

Presbyterian Church U.S.A. Votes to Divest from Israeli Companies

What is happening to this church? It's like overnight they're taken hostage by radical leftists.

This was out yesterday, at USA Today, "Presbyterians in U.S. to allow gay marriage ceremonies," and the New York Times, "Presbyterians Vote to Allow Same-Sex Marriages":

The Presbyterians follow other religious groups that have taken similar steps, including the United Church of Christ, which affirmed “equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender” in 2005; Quakers; the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; and the Reform and Conservative movements in Judaism.

Right. The Presbyterians are turning into a sadistic cult.

And now today, at the Los Angeles Times, "Presbyterians to divest from 3 companies to protest Israeli policies":

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA voted to sell its stock in three major companies Friday night in protest of Israeli policies in Palestinian-controlled lands.

During its national meeting, the general assembly narrowly voted to divest from Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Motorola Solutions by a vote of 310-303. Those three companies are said to supply Israel with tools used in building settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem

Though advocates said the decision should not signal support for a broader movement aimed at taking action to encourage Israel to change its policies toward Palestine, there has been concern among Israeli supporters that a decision to divest could signal momentum for the movement. In the same meeting, the Presbyterian organization voted to reaffirm its stance that Israel has a right to exist.

“We recognize the complexity of the issues, the decades-long struggle, the pain suffered and inflicted by policies and practices of both the Israeli government and Palestinian entities,” the documents state.

That's a lie, of course. The Presbyterian Church has joined the push by the World Council of Churches to demonize and delegitimize Israel as an Apartheid state, as Melanie Phillips discussed in her must-read piece, "'Jesus Was a Palestinian': The Return of Christian Anti-Semitism." The Church has tacked leftward along with society's increasing abandonment of strong Christian values as the moral guide to life. It's not a good omen for the West, although fortunately the overall BDS movement continues to be widely repudiated.

The Return of Christian Anti-Semitism

From Melanie Phillips, at Commentary, "'Jesus Was a Palestinian': The Return of Christian Anti-Semitism":

In all the uproar over the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement and the campaign to delegitimize Israel, the role of Protestant churches has received scant attention. This is a terrible mistake. The return of replacement theology is of the greatest possible significance to the way Israel is regarded in the West. The Church still has great influence over Western culture. Even in Britain, people think Christian clerics embody integrity, conscience, and truth-telling; when they assert that Israel is a racist, oppressive, aggressive state, they are believed. And in the United States, such is the centrality of Christianity and the Hebrew Bible that if this theological and political slide into untruth and hatred is not stopped, there will be drastic consequences—not just for support of Israel but for American society.

As Christians are murdered by Islamists across the world, some of their churches are directing their passions elsewhere. They are busily rewriting history, constructing a theology out of gross political distortion and lining up once again with historic forces of unfathomable darkness. It is not just the State of Israel that is being threatened as a result. Stamping upon its parent, the Church is embracing its own assassin—and the West’s potential nemesis.

This is a complicated essay that deserves multiples readings. And so I'll leave off to dear readers for now on this. I can say that this piece is astonishingly eye-opening. The malignant historical revisionism is just sickening, which has turned Christian faith into an ideology of Nazism.

Melanie Phillips Reveals How She Fights the Left

An amazing essay, at London's Daily Mail, "Why the Left hates families: MELANIE PHIILLIPS reveals how the selfish sneers of Guardianistas made her see how the Left actively fosters – and revels in – family breakdown..."

Via Josh Painter on Twitter.

How the Tories Are Screwing the Pooch — And Screwing Britain

From Melanie Phillips, at London's Daily Mail, "Why failing to stand up for marriage is the reason Tories are always in crisis":

The Tories are in ferment. Plots against David Cameron appear to be seeding like dandelion spores. Rebellion looms in the division lobbies.

The list of Mr Cameron's apparent crimes lengthens by the day.

The threatened triple-dip depression. Gay marriage. Labour's lead in the opinion polls. And the fact that the Prime Minister looks like a loser.

To which one might marvel at just what a shower these Tories are.

For they have behaved mutinously towards every one of their leaders since they toppled Mrs Thatcher in 1990.

The reason for this never-ending uproar surely lies deeper, however, than indiscipline among power-crazed MPs or the deficiencies of individual leaders.

Indeed, it explains why the Tories just can't seem to produce a leader they do support.
It is that conservatism itself is in crisis.

With some honourable exceptions, today's Tories don't appear to know what conservatism is for and what it is against.

In the last century, they all knew they had to defend Britain against socialism.
But when the Berlin Wall fell and Labour started speaking the language of market economics, the Tories seemed to conclude that their fox had been shot.

Fiasco

They could not have been more wrong. The attempt by the Left to undermine and topple Western society had merely shifted from political revolution to social and cultural issues.

And at the very centre of that systematic onslaught lay the intention to destroy the unique importance of the married family and replace it by a lifestyle free-for-all.
Not understanding the full significance of what was happening, the Tories made a total mess of the issue in the 'back to basics' fiasco under John Major, and then staged a full retreat under a barrage of attacks from the Left....

For at the heart of the decades-long onslaught by the Left against the core tenets of Western society lies the doctrine of 'non-judgmentalism', under which it has become forbidden to suggest that anyone's lifestyle is more socially desirable than any other.
Worse still, those whose behaviour lies outside conventional social norms are deemed to be 'victims' and their demands have been relabelled 'rights'.

So views that mothers and fathers are better for children than lone parents or step-parents, or that deliberately having babies outside marriage is selfish and irresponsible, have became unsayable.

The fundamental need children have for their own mother and father has simply been trumped by the selfish desires of adults.

Breakdown

To mask this abandonment of children, their core need was redefined as being 'lifted out of poverty' - which merely made their mothers ever more dependent on state benefits, and thus promoted sexual anarchy even further.

The result has been an unmitigated disaster. In some areas, several generations of family disintegration have resulted in a total breakdown in parenting, so that children are becoming horrifyingly incapable of even basic functions.

According to the Government's adviser on problem families, Louise Casey, some three-year-olds are unable to walk because they are habitually parked in their buggies in front of the TV.

And Russell Hobby, general secretary of the National Association of Headteachers, has spoken of children who, when they come to school, can only grunt as they haven't been taught to speak; and who may also still be in nappies at the age of five.

Ms Casey laments that no official initiatives seem to get through to such families. Of course not - because the one thing that is needed above all, to remove the perverse incentives that have destroyed marriage in such areas, is the one policy that will never be enacted.

The real reason the Tories won't properly address this is not just the inane social nihilism of Nick Clegg. It is surely because the Tory leadership itself has such a shallow and reductive view of marriage - including among its supposed cheerleaders.

Look at the reasons they give for supporting marriage - that it promotes stability, unselfishness and self-sacrifice. That was the substance of Michael Gove's paean of praise for the institution yesterday, as he made the case for extending it to gays.

RTWT at that top link.

And also, "DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Gay marriage and a split no one wanted."

Who Should Trust Anthony Weiner Now? No One. He Should Resign

Watch this clip with James Poulos (via Instapundit). Then read Emily Miller's commentary, "Anthony Weiner Should Resign Now":

Mr. Weiner is out for himself and has shown no regard for his constituents or the duty of his public office. From his embattled stance, it seems that the only way to force him out of office is for the Pelosi- launched ethics investigation to determine what he has lied about and what rules and possible laws he has broken. If he had any decency, he would resign.

Britian's PC Enforcers Attack Melanie Phillips Over Column Denouncing Palestinian Terrorists as 'Savages'

The story's at London's Guardian, "PCC investigates Melanie Phillips' Spectator blog" (via Blazing Cat Fur and Memeorandum). As readers here of course know, Phillips is one of the most penetrating writers on the moral depravity not just of Islamist jihadists, but of their progressive enablers in the press, left-wing parties and online fever-swamps. Robert Spencer offers an excellent response, "UK columnist investigated for referring to jihad murderers of Jewish family as 'savages'." And check the commentary at Spectator's "Coffee House" blog, "The threat to a British liberty":

We have no First Amendment protection in this country, and we're suffering from it. Freedom of expression under attack in Britain, from our notorious libel laws to this new phenomenon of police forces being asked to investigate what people put on their blogs.

Well, even the First Amendment is no guarantee against the kinds of assault on liberty progressives have mounted on truth-tellers worldwide. (Hat Tip: Israel Matzav.)