It shows Jewish teenagers in a Paris suburb complaining they would have to join the exodus of French Jews leaving for Israel under pressure from Muslim neighbours.
“This is a Jewish quarter surrounded by banlieues. We’re trapped here — when we go out we risk our lives,” says a Jewish schoolboy from Sarcelles, a Paris district that saw violent attacks on Jews during pro-Palestinian riots in 2014.
The teenagers described frequent beatings.
“Everybody here wants to move,” says one. “Almost everyone from Sarcelles has moved to Netanya [in Israel]. If you go there it’s like Paris — there are only French [people] around.”
Europe is a lost continent and we are the generation that lost it.
I am doing a presentation in Los Angeles at the end of the week which I have titled “A Beginner’s Guide to Say’s Law”. At the centre of this presentation there is a slide that reads as shown below. And the point I am making, and will then set out to prove, is that not only was not one of these propositions accepted by John Stuart Mill nor by any of his mainstream classical contemporaries, but demonstrating that the classical economists were right is far easier than you might think. This is the slide:
Economics is filled with nonsense no economist before the marginal revolution [1870], never mind the Keynesian Revolution [1936], would have believed:
A national economy is driven from the demand side
Classical economists had no theory to explain involuntary unemployment
Recessions can be caused by demand deficiency
Thinking of national saving as a flow of money makes sense
Unproductive public spending can make an economy grow
Profits are maximised where Marginal Revenue equals Marginal Cost
Supply and demand explains what businesses do and how markets work
You can discuss the operation of an economy without discussing the role of the entrepreneur in detail
Nor is it that our modern ways of thinking had never occurred in classical times. Every one of these propositions had their fringe-dwelling supporters but not only were none of these accepted by the classical mainstream but each and every one was also actively opposed. Today, of course, every one of these is mainstream. So what makes you actually believe in progress when economic theory was far more sound and acute 150 years ago than it is today?
Excerpted from an Intelligence Squared event:
“Don’t give them what they want: Terrorists should be starved of the oxygen of publicity”
February 22, 2017 at The Royal Institution
Never mind worrying about giving them what they want, let’s give them what they don’t want. Make a list and do as many as we can. Incredible to hear an Islamist taking this line and others listening. We shouldn’t be taking his advice on anything. Same for us listening to the head of the Cultural Marxist ABC.
The British election result shows these radical Islamists understand our political system better than we do. The attacks in London were designed to affect the election away from the Conservatives which it seems to have done to a remarkable extent. Why would people vote for a party less likely to defend them from from terrorists? Many reasons, starting with Stockholm Syndrome through to the vile stupidity of the virulent anti-Christian cultural-Marxist left.
What Pauline Hanson asked, and everyone without a brain clot understood, is whether there is a connection between the rise in terrorist activity and the increasing number of migrants from Middle Eastern countries. Waleed Ali may wish to play to the weak-minded among us, but it is an act that is thankfully wearing thin: Waleed Aly follows Duncan Lewis as latest casualty in credibility stakes. Splitting hairs on the meaning of words really does tell us a very great deal about Waleed. It is true that the definition of “terrorist” does not overlap with the definition of “refugee”, but if that is your best answer to the terrorist problem, you have nothing to say of the slightest value.
The attack on the streets of Melbourne and Andrew’s response is certainly worth the attention it has received and more, but whether I will sell a single additional copy of the book is another thing, so let me add that it was my book on the election of Donald Trump that Andrew was launching: The Art of the Impossible. You should buy the book if you want to understand why Trump won the election and why you should be ecstatic that he did. From my speaking notes for the launch.
• if you wanted Trump to win, or are even just happy that he did win, this is a wander through all of the most important moments that brought him to the presidency
• it is the first book ever published that is entirely made up of blog posts written at the time – it is entirely forward moving beginning with a discussion on Obama under the heading “Politics is what you can get away with”
• that the book is entirely comprised of blog posts is significant because:
• it tells a contemporary tale as it happened returning you to the moments themselves
• no post was written in the knowledge of hindsight – everything is discussed as it happened so that you can revisit the tensions of the time
• it is written by someone whose own personal political agenda was virtually identical to Trump’s – our overlap was 94%
• it helps explain why Trump became president
• it helps explain why we should be eternally grateful that Trump became president
• it shows how high the stakes were
• it shows that Hillary is right that Comey was the reason she lost but that Comey was acting under the instructions of Loretta Lynch who was herself acting under the instructions of Obama
• the book is part narrative, part excerpts from others writing at the time, part history and part political philosophy – it is told as it happens but as a 400-page volume the effect is as much philosophical as it is a reminder of the sequence of events and why you should be grateful things turned out the way they did.
Buy the book and read it for yourself, just as Andrew Bolt recommended on the day and in the link above.
A military self-defense system developed for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli security forces (Shin Bet and Mossad) that consists of a combination of techniques sourced from Boxing, Wrestling, Muay Thai, Jujutsu, Aikido, Judo, along with realistic fight training. Krav Maga is known for its focus on real-world situations and its extreme efficiency and brutal counter-attacks. It was derived from the street-fighting experience of Hungarian-Israeli martial artist Imi Lichtenfeld, who made use of his training as a boxer and wrestler as a means of defending the Jewish quarter against fascist groups in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia in the mid-to-late 1930s. In the late 1940s, following his migration to Israel, he began to provide lessons on combat training to what was to become the IDF.
Is this really where we are heading? It is the legal system that must protect us. But now that we are dealing with suicide attacks, it is not good enough to make an example of these people by putting them in jail after they have been caught, tried and convicted. I might add that in the end personal self-defence did not work out for the Jewish citizens of Bratislava.
It was frightening while we waited to hear how Andrew Bolt had survived the attack, and while it was only ten minutes, the impact will not recede soon. A day later we are mostly back to where we were, unlike the two dead Australian women in London. This is Andrew’s take where we find this picture and also at the link Andrew’s presentation.
And this is the report from The Age. The comments thread is actually evenly divided which it being The Age is actually positive news. What no one seems to appreciate is that with the murders in London and here in Brighton just the day before, no one has the time to work out in advance who the attackers are or what they intend to do. This time paint, next time who knows?
“I don’t think we should roll out the red carpet to the president of the USA in the circumstances where his policies go against everything we stand for,” he said.
Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, called Saturday’s attack “deliberate and cowardly,” and asked “all Londoners to remain calm and vigilant today and in the days ahead.” Most notably, he said: “You will see an increased police presence today, including armed officers and uniformed officers. There is no reason to be alarmed by this. We are the safest global city in the world.”
What a thing to say at a time like this. Shouldn’t Britons be alarmed? Isn’t Saturday’s attack in London, coming as it did on the heels of the Manchester bombing, deeply disturbing? Why isn’t Khan more concerned about the threats that are so obviously at the doorstep, or better put, in Britain’s streets? Does anyone really take comfort from being told about swift police response times after yet another terrorist.
And Labour made him mayor of London! BTW, did you know that this Khan fellow was once the lawyer for for the 911 terrorists which you can also read about here? From the latter of the two this question:
How is it a supporter of radical Islam becomes mayor of London and is being fast-tracked to be a future Prime Minister of Great Britain? And why is the Mainstream Media so clearly determined to cover up Khan’s shocking extremist past?
And from the first you can watch this:
There is something so deep and sinister going on that it defies reason. We will deserve everything we get so stupid we are. Meanwhile Trump gets it right and the usual suspects get it wrong.
Law of Markets 