Too complicated to remember. The post ‘I’ve Just Seen A Face’: The Beatles song Joe Elliott struggled to sing properly first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Riding a motorcycle is an exhilarating experience‚ but safety is key for ensuring a smooth ride. Motorcycle gear like a helmet‚ a heavy-duty jacket‚ gloves‚ boots‚ and more are essential for protecting you on the road. However‚ eye protection is just as crucial when riding a motorcycle and is not to be underestimated. Motorcycle-associated ocular ... The post Riding Your Motorcycle in Sunglasses: Everything You Need To Know appeared first on YouMotorcycle.

As this is a week in which many of us can proclaim our profound‚ and probably permanent‚ disgust with the people who claim to be the elites among us‚ I figured I’d wrap things up with a five-count indictment of the folks running the circus they’ve made of America based just on this week’s news. This is curated pretty closely‚ you understand. I could easily have crafted a 55-part denouncement of our ruling-class twits. But this will do. 1. Joe Biden’s New Jobs Are Not for Americans Breitbart had this utterly-insane-but-totally-predictable story earlier this week: President Joe Biden’s jobs record is built on the record hiring of 2.9 million job-seeking migrants — and a persistent 183‚000 deficit in the number of Americans with jobs compared to 2019‚ according to a report by the Center for Immigration Studies. Biden’s “Immigrant employment … has exploded‚” said a statement by Steven Camarota‚ who wrote the report‚ titled “All Employment Growth Has Gone to Immigrants‚ Compared to 2019.” “The number of U.S.-born Americans working [has grown yet] has still not returned to the 2019 pre-Covid level‚” he added. The data does not say that American job-seekers are being unfairly pushed aside while employers only hire migrants for new jobs. Instead‚ the data showed that all of Biden’s extra jobs above the 2019 level are held by his migrants — even as U.S.-born workers have not regained all their jobs held in 2019. Yesterday here at The American Spectator‚ J.T. Young had an excellent column pointing out that the actual economic growth of Biden’s term has been pathetic‚ contra the happy talk purveyed by his votaries. We grew our GDP by 5.8 percent in 2021‚ which would have been a very good number but for the fact it was set off against the COVID panic and shutdowns of 2020. That 5.8 percent was simply getting back some of the loss from the virus and its response — and then it was followed by a very meager 1.9 percent in 2022 and 2.5 percent last year. Those numbers suck. Biden‚ who is about as close an avatar for the Washington elite as there is when it comes to economics — all he knows is tax‚ tax‚ tax‚ spend‚ spend‚ spend‚ and do everything possible to kick small and mid-sized business in the crotch — is busily demanding credit for a garbage economy rife with shortages. You can’t add 10 million illegals to the population in three years while the cities your partisan allies run are all engaging in policies making it impossible to build affordable housing. You can’t also add that population while crippling the auto industry with EV mandates when the public (1) can’t afford and (2) doesn’t want electric cars. And if your housing and auto industries are locked up‚ your economy will suck. Houses and cars are the two most important purchases people can make and Biden has priced regular Americans‚ and particularly working-class Americans‚ out of both. That doesn’t even take into consideration the inflationary policies of his fiscally incontinent government. Everybody you talk to thinks we’re going to get a big drop in the economy soon. Lots of people think it’s a planned crisis so the elites can seize even more control of our economy. They’re probably right on both counts. Either way‚ this economy sucks and it’s going to suck for a while to come. 2. The Five Eyes of John Brennan A rational country would have Barack Obama’s spymaster John Brennan‚ a filthy Deep State villain straight out of King’s Landing‚ up against a wall somewhere for this: Until now‚ the official story has been that the FBI’s investigation began after Australian intelligence officials told US officials that a Trump aide had boasted to an Australian diplomat that Russia had damning material about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. In truth‚ the US IC asked the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance to surveil Trump’s associates and share the intelligence they acquired with US agencies‚ say sources close to a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HSPCI) investigation. The Five Eyes nations are the US‚ UK‚ Canada‚ Australia‚ and New Zealand. After Public and Racket had been told that President Barack Obama’s CIA Director‚ John Brennan‚ had identified 26 Trump associates for the Five Eyes to target‚ a source confirmed that the IC had “identified [them] as people to ‘bump‚’ or make contact with or manipulate. They were targets of our own IC and law enforcement — targets for collection and misinformation.” Brennan sicced the intelligence services of our allies on the Trump camp so that when their tradecraft bounced back to America’s intelligence community they had plausible legality and manufactured probable cause to begin flogging the Russia hoax. Newt Gingrich noted that this has been going on since the 1960s. It’s undoubtedly worse now. And Brennan compounded his election interference (yes‚ I know I could accuse that old bastard of a lot worse) by participating in the October 2020 lie that the Hunter Biden laptop reporting was “Russian disinformation‚” a lie that more than any other factor facilitated the theft of that election. A man such as that would die in prison in a constitutional republic run by serious people. Instead‚ he’s a paid talking head for legacy corporate media. 3. Soros’ Audacy Audacity He’s been gobbling up radio stations for some time now‚ but things are becoming serious — George Soros‚ the nearest thing we have to an authentic James Bond villain (and soon‚ perhaps‚ the father-in-law to Hillary Clinton’s mini-me Huma Abedin)‚ is in talks to scarf down the Audacy radio chain: George Soros is poised to take a massive stake in the nation’s second-largest radio company‚ which owns more than 220 stations nationwide‚ according to court filings and sources close to the situation. The left-leaning billionaire’s Soros Fund Management has bought up $400 million of debt in Audacy — the No. 2 US radio broadcaster behind iHeartMedia with stations including New York’s WFAN and 1010 WINS‚ as well as Los Angeles-based KROQ‚ according to bankruptcy filings. One insider close to the situation‚ noting that he was a Republican‚ said he believed it was possible Soros was buying the stake to exert influence on public opinion in the months leading up to the 2024 presidential election. “This is scary‚” the source said. Most major markets have an Audacy talk station. How many of those are currently conservative I couldn’t say — my experience with Audacy is that WWL Radio in New Orleans is part of that group‚ and WWL’s talk hosts are a lot more left-wing than center-right (and have been for some time). I can’t say that’s true of all or even most of the Audacy talk stations; I can say Salem and iHeart stations feature consistent conservatism and to my knowledge Audacy is a mixed bag at best. Still‚ if this sale goes through‚ there will surely be conservative talk hosts finding themselves out of a job and conservative talk listeners finding themselves without representation on the air in lots of markets that Audacy serves. We noted a couple of columns ago the utter disdain for free speech that our elites have. Soros is about as emblematic of that animus as anyone can find‚ and he’s working to starve the public of an honest back-and-forth. They don’t want that back-and-forth. 4. The Rolling Stone–Kristen Stewart Debacle At some point‚ Rolling Stone Magazine was a legitimate voice of American counterculture. That point passed a long time ago. Rolling Stone is now a discredited outlet serving that portion of the American elite who wish to pretend to be edgy or cool — but lost the ability to do that‚ if they ever had it‚ long ago. Rolling Stone runs narrative-driven hoax articles when it doesn’t practice celebrity idolatry. The latter is expected of a pop-culture publication‚ and there was a time when that was mostly inoffensive — or if it wasn’t‚ it was at least fun. There is nothing fun about this: Kristen Stewart‚ Rolling Stone’s March cover star‚ just wants to “do the gayest thing you’ve ever seen in your life.” After more than two decades in the spotlight‚ she knows who she is — and what she wants. Cover story/Photos: https://t.co/c7jbLK5gpd pic.twitter.com/ljbryy9L6x — Rolling Stone (@RollingStone) February 14‚ 2024 Disgusting. There was a whole army of publicists‚ marketing gurus‚ editors‚ agents‚ and other faux-elite operators who got together and came up with the idea this would (1) sell magazines and (2) burnish Kristen Stewart’s image and make her relevant as an actress and celebrity again. What’s worse‚ they released this quote from Stewart in the cover article about that grotesque cover photo and the lesbian action film she’s promoting: “Now‚ I want to do the gayest f**king thing you’ve ever seen in your life. If I could grow a little mustache‚ if I could grow a f**king happy trail and unbutton my pants‚ I would.” You’ve probably noticed this as well‚ but there is a direct relationship between vulgarity and incompetence. They’re inexorably intertwined. And our cultural elites‚ who are derivative in every way‚ from recycled fashions to recycled movies to recycled ideas‚ cheapening and dumbing down with each iteration‚ are horrifically vulgar. It’s the only thing that saves them from the charge of outright plagiarism. Kristen Stewart appears to be finished as a marketable actress. If this is all she and the people who handle her can offer‚ that’s probably for the best. 5. And This Is What They Think of the Constitution You’ve seen this in Europe‚ where the “well-educated” children of the nomenklatura are busily defacing monuments and great works of art in the name of the environment. Every time one of these incidents occurs‚ it’s a puzzling spectacle because no one ever takes any action to stop the vandalism until it’s complete. At least when they try to block a road‚ a couple of burly truck drivers will depart their vehicles and drag the spoiled twits to the side. There was at least a touch of haughtiness from this side of the Atlantic‚ in that we could tell ourselves we’d never be the wimps the Euros are if somebody came to try to trash our treasures. And we’ve now lost that‚ because when two beta-male brats showed up at the National Archives and poured red powder all over the Constitution display in the rotunda while prattling on about the climate‚ nobody did a damn thing. BREAKING: Climate activists just ruined the display of the Constitution in the Rotunda of the National Archives in DC. They poured red powder on themselves and the display. Security stands around doing nothing for minutes until they finally get arrested. pic.twitter.com/bXggSHgl4T — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 14‚ 2024 You’ll notice it’s three and a half minutes into that video before the rent-a-cop security guards finally bother arresting these two Mutt and Jeff pinheads. And the video doesn’t even begin until well after the act has commenced. Meaning it’s probably closer to four minutes after they’ve defaced a display of the U.S. Constitution before any consequences happen at all. And there are some sizable males visible in that video. How an outrage like this doesn’t immediately devolve into fisticuffs and serious injuries on the part of the perpetrators is utterly baffling — or it would have been but for the proliferation of cases like those of Daniel Penny and Michael Cassidy. The second that red powder came out of whatever container it came in‚ blows should have been raining down on the heads of these two defectives. Preferably by billy-club-wielding policemen‚ but if not‚ then by interested bystanders moved to violence by civic spirit. I’ll submit‚ based on the above but also based on now years of experience watching our elites and their works‚ that none of that happens because they actually favor these oddballs and their insults to our core values and institutions. The people who run the National Archives demand raids on Mar-a-Lago but not the use of force to defend the most important documents in their collection at company headquarters? Because if there was a policy that those security guards would become very decisive and quite hostile when someone attempted something like this‚ those guards would have executed that policy. The elites in this country are loathsome. Mostly‚ though not completely‚ because they loathe the rest of us. READ MORE: Kurt Schlichter’s The Attack Is A Must-Read For 2024 The Deepening Joe Deadhorse Dilemma Scott McKay’s King of the Jungle‚ Episode 2: An Unexpected Paradise The post Five Quick Things: Checking In on Our Abysmal Elites appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Do reasons beyond rooting for a Russian victory exist for skittishness over a $95 billion bill that includes $60 billion for Ukraine? President Joe Biden said opposing the bill‚ which passed the Senate‚ amounted to “playing into Putin’s hands.” Cornell Professor Glenn C. Altschuler‚ writing in the Hill‚ accused House Republicans of “putting partisan interests ahead of what’s best for the country and the free world by refusing to get to yes on aid to Ukraine.” One wonders what it would take for Democrats to get to “no.” Would opposing $600 billion in aid‚ instead of the $60 billion here‚ still constitute “playing into Putin’s hands” or “putting partisan interests ahead of what’s best for the country”? In other words‚ there lacks a delimiting number or even principle here. The American taxpayer owes $34 trillion. The deficit‚ exceeding $1 trillion for the last four years‚ projects to $1.5 trillion this year. For the few on Capitol Hill who prioritize fiscal restraint‚ spending an additional $60 billion on a war not involving us or a major trading partner would seem a nonstarter. Others with a patriotic impulse to not get played as the sap might look to the grossly disproportionate support for Ukraine between the U.S.‚ on the one hand‚ and some European nations‚ on the other. When one considers military aid to Ukraine‚ the United States eclipses the amount provided by the next 10 highest donor nations combined. Although several of the contributors — Norway‚ Czech Republic‚ Poland — sacrificed enormous amounts considering their size‚ the fact that almost all of the nations on the list sit in Ukraine’s general neighborhood and about 5‚000 miles separate Kyiv from Washington‚ D.C.‚ illustrates the degree to which the United States carries the weight more justly borne by European nations. Rather than the U.S. Congress — which has already appropriated more than the next 10 most generous nations combined — why not ask members of‚ say‚ the French Parliament if they play into Putin’s hands through guarding their purse? Still others express reservations based on Ukraine’s notorious corruption. The concern pertains less to locals pilfering aid funds meant for defense in Ukraine than it does to Ukrainian money winning powerful people in the West to their cause. Special counsel David Weiss secured an indictment of a source‚ arrested Thursday in Las Vegas‚ who the FBI once described as credible and even paid for a period for claiming that Joe Biden and his son took bribes from Ukraine. We do know that Hunter Biden‚ joining the board of defunct Ukrainian petroleum outfit Burisma in 2014‚ received‚ along with associates‚ $6.5 million from the company for doing exactly what nobody knows. One clue came from his father when he told the story about using U.S. tax dollars to pressure the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor investigating the company that paid his son millions. “I said‚ ‘I’m telling you‚ you’re not getting the billion dollars‚’” Joe Biden bragged of his threats to Ukraine’s leaders. “I said‚ ‘You’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in’ — I think it was about six hours — I looked at them and said‚ ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired‚ you’re not getting the money.’ Well‚ son of a bitch — he got fired.’” Later‚ Ukraine returned the favor of intrusion into domestic politics through its involvement in the first impeachment of Donald Trump. Enthusiasts of aid to Ukraine mute very real concerns over corruption‚ fiscal restraint‚ proportionality‚ and even whether the aid just subsidizes more killing. Opponents of the aid ignore the evil confronting Ukraine clearly displayed in Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin. Therein‚ the Russian strongman bizarrely spoke of the war as an effort to “denazify Ukraine‚” preposterously referred to the Soviet Union’s carving up Poland with Nazi Germany during World War II as a reaction to Polish “betrayal‚” essentially indicated his government kidnapped a journalist to force the Germans to release a Russian hitman that he described as a “patriot‚” and described Ukraine as an “artificial state.” It seems a bad idea to cede more territory than necessary to a person who sounds like an unreconstructed Commie. One suspects much of the resistance to the aid bill might evaporate if the parties involved in the war’s funding negotiated‚ just as the war might similarly cease if the parties fighting it came to the bargaining table. Sometimes aid‚ like war‚ incurs too high a cost. READ MORE: Biden Pal Bobulinski New Testimony to House Committees Putin’s Self-Serving Lies The post What’s Blocking the Ukraine Aid Bill appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In 2005‚ I published a book titled The Death of Feminism. At the time‚ I was focused on how Western feminists had become obsessed more with the alleged “occupation” of a country that has never existed — Palestine — than with the real occupation of women’s bodies in Gaza and on the West Bank‚ who were being forced into hijab‚ niqab‚ and child and arranged marriages‚ or who were being honor killed by their families for minor or imagined infractions. This form of femicide is primarily a Muslim-on-Muslim crime both in the West and in Muslim countries but‚ to a lesser extent‚ also takes place among Hindus in India‚ and‚ less frequently‚ among Sikhs. Honor killing is likely a tribal custom that religious leaders have failed to abolish‚ I wrote‚ one in which women also collaborate. Both Stalinized and Palestinianized feminists and rabid Islamists denounced me as an “Islamophobe” for prioritizing the rights of women of color over and above the rights of the men (and women) of color who were terrorizing and even killing them. I was also condemned as a “Zionist” for questioning the sacredness of Palestinian victimhood. READ MORE: The American People Know the Real Hamas Thus‚ I may have been among a handful of people not surprised by the feminist silence on Hamas’ Oct. 7 pogrom-on-steroids. It does not ease my sorrow that so many others‚ including the worldwide media and professoriate‚ human rights groups‚ and the United Nations‚ are also actively engaging in Oct. 7 denialism‚ as well as in relentless and vicious blood libels against the Jewish state‚ every single day. By the late afternoon of Oct. 7‚ I was a cognitive warrior on fire. Between Oct. 11 and Jan. 25‚ I had published 24 articles on the subject and been interviewed about it 10 times. Most second-wave feminists have died‚ suffered strokes‚ or are struggling with either dementia or cancer. Many are disabled. They are no longer “dancing in the streets.” But some of my long-time allies still attend conferences‚ march‚ sign petitions‚ write articles‚ and speak out. These are the feminist allies who did not respond to the articles that I sent them about their shameful‚ even unbearable‚ silence. Perhaps they felt that Israel deserved whatever it got but were too embarrassed to say that to me. Instead‚ they said nothing. Only one such feminist ally responded by sending me articles by Masha Gessen and Judith Butler. She suggested that reading their ideas about the moral superiority of vulnerable Jewish Diaspora life and the advantages of dissolving the Jewish state would “open my mind to the truth.” She also sent me an article that blamed Benjamin Netanyahu — and only Netanyahu — for the failure of a “two state solution — the only fair solution.” I immediately sent her my critique of Butler and Gessen; I sent her Bassem Eid’s fact-based piece in Newsweek. Eid summarizes the long history of Arab rejection of the offers for a Palestinian state‚ first proffered by the British‚ then by the UN‚ and‚ finally‚ by Israel at least six times. Thus far‚ she has not responded. Another long-time feminist (a friend‚ not merely an ally) is adamant that Israel is “committing genocide” and is an “apartheid‚ colonial‚ occupying state.” I told her that we cannot discuss Israel ever again. But now our conversations are thinned‚ brittle. There is no way we can discuss Oct. 7 without endangering our suddenly fragile friendship. Why are my views so different? Here’s one reason. Most Western pro-Palestinian feminists have never lived in a Muslim country or moved in Muslim circles‚ as I have — and still do. When I was young and oh-so-foolish‚ I traveled to Kabul with my Westernized Afghan husband‚ whom I had met at college. Once we landed‚ an airport official smoothly‚ officiously‚ removed my American passport; I never saw it again. I found myself trapped in the 10th century with no way back to the future. I was unexpectedly held in captivity. I had to live with my mother-in-law‚ who was one of three wives and the mother of six of her polygamous husband’s 21 children. She tried to convert me to Islam every day. I learned a great deal about living in an Islamic‚ theocratic state where both infidels and Shiia (Hazara) Muslims were despised‚ servants routinely mistreated‚ and women held in contempt. I wrote about this in An American Bride in Kabul. I read almost every book about the country‚ every memoir written by Afghans and by foreigners who visited Muslim countries. I researched the history of the Jews of Afghanistan and found a chilling‚ personal connection to their story. It won the National Jewish Book Award for 2013. Unlike me‚ most feminists had absolutely no knowledge of Islamic gender and religious apartheid; of Islamic imperialism‚ Islamic colonialism‚ or Islamic conversion via the sword; no fact-based understanding that Muslims practiced anti-black slavery and sex-slavery. Unlike me‚ few had ever visited or spent time in Israel‚ although some had. In either event‚ so many had been successfully indoctrinated to believe that Israel was the worst country on earth. Perhaps‚ unlike me‚ most feminists had not attended Hebrew School in Boro Park from the time they were 5 years old until they turned 14. And few had been members of radical‚ left-wing Zionist groups as I had — groups they probably would have respected. ***** I was also not surprised by the feminist silence for another reason. In the very early 1970s‚ I experienced antisemitism among leftist and lesbian feminists. It was not political. I was told that Jews like me were too pushy‚ too smart‚ too sexy and were taking over the movement. Such views sent me straight to Israel. A small group that included Lilith magazine founder Aviva Cantor Zuckoff‚ Cheryl Moch‚ and me held a press conference on the subject; for years‚ we tried to interest leading Jewish feminists in joining us to discuss this. At the time‚ neither Andrea Dworkin nor Letty Cottin Pogrebin was interested in such a discussion. In the mid-1970s‚ I tried to get feminist signatures for petitions against the UN’s resolution that Zionism equals racism. Some signed‚ but many feminists refused to do so. I explained that anti-Zionism equals racism. I got nowhere with the feminist Marxists or with others who hated Jews for more personal reasons. I also began working with Israeli feminists in Haifa‚ Jerusalem‚ and Tel Aviv and taking American journalists to Israel in the hope that they’d modify or expand their views. And they did. In 1979‚ I was hired by the United Nations to organize a feminist conference in Oslo‚ to take place right before the UN conference on women in Copenhagen. Lilith interviewed me under a pseudonym about the pre-Durban-like psychological pogrom that Copenhagen turned out to be. Like other women who’ve worked at the UN‚ I‚ too‚ was sexually harassed and then assaulted by my employer there‚ the late Dr. Davidson Nicol‚ an under-secretary general and the executive director of the UN Institute for Training and Research. I had invited my ally and dear friend‚ Robin Morgan‚ to the Oslo conference as Gloria Steinem’s last–minute replacement. She refused to support me in confronting Davidson (he had sexually harassed other women in Oslo); Robin justified her refusal to do so on the basis of his skin color — black — a concern that trumped her supposed commitment to sexual harassment‚ rape‚ sisterhood‚ and friendship. Robin said‚ “It would look bad if a white feminist accused a black man of rape.” This concern was not shared by many of the Black African women who attended the conference. As the late Motlalepula Chabaku said‚ “Let’s confront this dirty dog.” Upon returning to New York‚ Robin badmouthed me as a Zionist and/or as a “paranoid” Zionist. She did so in order to cover up her planned involvement with Nicol on behalf of Ms. magazine. Nicol allowed her to write the “Introduction to the Proceedings” of the conference that I and my assistant‚ Dr. Barbara Joans‚ had organized — and she “borrowed” the very best feminists whom we had found for her anthology Sisterhood Is Global. She also “appropriated” these same women who became key players in Ms. magazine’s global network. This was a pity. I would have given Robin my rolodex if she’d only asked. I do not “do” anthologies as she does. However‚ had she supported me‚ Robin might not have had the kind of access to the UN that she wanted. I could not sue Nicol — he had diplomatic immunity. In any event‚ I wanted feminist justice behind closed doors. I did not want Nicol to go to his grave believing he could divide the likes of us. I asked Gloria for her help. She agreed. We held a meeting in Gloria’s apartment. Promises were made‚ but they were never kept. Robin never publicly acknowledged what she had done. No one ever confronted Nicol. I had invited Charlotte Bunch and Letty to this private meeting. Letty told me that “if Robin had done this to her‚ she would have killed her.” At the time‚ my close friend Andrea Dworkin read my extensive narrative‚ sighed‚ and said she believed that he had raped me — but she also believed that Robin was truly concerned that it would make “feminism” look bad if a white feminist were to accuse a black man of rape. That was Andrea. She always knew which side her bread was buttered on and whom she absolutely could not afford to offend. Nearly 40 years later‚ in 2018‚ I wrote about all this in A Politically Incorrect Feminist. In 1981‚ I convened a panel on feminism and antisemitism at the National Women’s Studies Association’s Annual meeting that took place in Storrs‚ Connecticut. I turned the tapes over to Letty Cottin Pogrebin‚ who then wrote an article on this subject for Ms. magazine‚ which in turn led to a chapter in her 1991 book Deborah‚ Golda‚ and Me. Eleven years after Oslo‚ both Robin and Gloria supported Anita Hill when she made her allegations against Justice Clarence Thomas. To them‚ that was an acceptably feminist option because both the accuser and the accused were black. More importantly‚ Hill was a liberal feminist‚ and Thomas was a conservative. Thus‚ I understood‚ long ago‚ that leading feminists could and would sacrifice some of their basic principles for other principles‚ and/or for personal‚ political‚ or financial gain. Feminists are human beings‚ as close to the apes as to the angels. They are also political animals. Some are dangerously flawed human beings. There is also something that has not been said about the Oct. 7 feminist silence‚ something that professor Amy Elman and I have been discussing. Long ago‚ some feminists (the “abolitionists”) strongly opposed pornography; others felt that censoring it would harm their own lesbian sexual rights or their heterosexual sexual rights outside of marriage. Some feminists opposed sadistic violence toward prostituted women. Others either enjoyed it or were willing to live with it. Pornography‚ however‚ has gotten more sadistic. It has influenced teenagers to dress like “hoes” and celebrities to appear half-naked‚ crawling around the stage like erotically crazed animals‚ even as they are accompanied by male partners dressed in tuxedos. In my view‚ what ISIS and Hamas did was influenced by the most violent pornography. Feminists should have been the first to recognize this. Instead‚ they not only remained silent for months — they have never linked what Hamas or ISIS did to the influence of pornography. Let’s remember that the Navy Seals who assassinated Osama bin Laden also found a tremendous stash of pornography that has never been made available. Bin Laden was a man who kept his four wives in burqas‚ even when they went swimming in their own private pool. (READ MORE: Bin Laden’s Letter Praised by TikTok) However‚ feminist abolitionists who are still active but have remained silent have been taught to hate Israel and view Hamas as a “resistance” movement. They lack the courage to uphold their own unpopular analysis of pornography‚ lest it be used to support Israel. Once Hamas/Iran unleashed the horror of Oct. 7‚ I understood that the world would never be the same — at least not for Israelis‚ and not for Jews who care about Israeli and Jewish survival. I also understood that Oct. 7 advanced World War III between the Judeo-Christian West and those who yearn for a global Caliphate. By Oct. 8‚ my friend and ally Mandy Sanghera‚ a British-Indian Sikh activist‚ and I had taken to social media. (I’d worked with Mandy before in our 2021 rescue of 398 women from Afghanistan and in other honor-based violence projects). We were up in arms about Hamas’ pogrom/massacre — and about the collective feminist silence. Mandy posted a piece on her WordPress blog titled “Yet Again‚ Sexual Violence is a Weapon of War‚ This Time in Israel. What Are We Going To Do About It?” By Oct. 11‚ I had published a piece at Jewish News Service about the “women-hating women who support Hamas‚” which was also reposted widely. Mandy and I kept talking and writing. For the first time in her career‚ she began experiencing blowback for her “too”-pro-Israel views. Mandy was being warned‚ bullied‚ and de-friended. The non-feminist media‚ Jewish media‚ and journalists all weighed in. Liel Leibowitz at Tablet on Oct. 8; Monica Osborne at Newsweek on Oct. 10. Also on Oct. 8‚ the press team at the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF)‚ a conservative group‚ issued a statement titled “Unprovoked Terror Attack by Hamas On Israel‚ Israel Responds: It’s War.” Senior policy fellow Dr. Meaghan Mobbs denounced the “barbaric targeting of women and girls [as] vile and deserv[ing of] the world’s contempt.” Senior fellow Dr. Qanta Ahmed described Oct. 7 as “heinous acts of Islamist jihadists backed by Iran [that] imperils all nations working for peace with Israel.” The IWF published 10 such articles between Oct. 8‚ 2023‚ and Jan. 1‚ 2024. On Oct. 10‚ Joe Biden’s White House weighed in. The president described what Hamas did as “evil‚” but mass media outlets continued to insist that “such reports [about rape] were unsubstantiated.” By Oct. 11‚ the left-wing newspaper Forward claimed that Tablet’s details consisted of “murky” “allegations” that “have not been substantiated” and dismissed or defamed Leibowitz as a “right-wing” journalist. With one exception‚ left-liberal feminists maintained their silence. On Oct. 12‚ the radical feminist group Women’s Declaration International USA‚ whose views I share‚ published a statement in which it declared: “Like many‚ we watched in horror as Hamas invaded southern Israel‚ raping Jewish women and girls‚ murdering innocent civilians‚ and taking (civilians) hostage…. We are disgusted to see reports of Americans championing the cause of Hamas.” On Oct. 13‚ Mandy and I published a piece at New English Review titled “Rape as a Weapon of War‚ This Time in Israel. Why are Feminist Silent?‚” which was translated into Polish and picked up widely. I sent all my articles to Gloria Steinem‚ with a note asking her to “help.” She responded at once and said she would “ask the Feminist Majority folks [who publish Ms.] if they have responded.” It took Ms. magazine two months before it published anything‚ and when it did‚ the article left everything to be desired. ***** As I was writing about Oct. 7‚ I was being inundated by the sights and sounds of protesters on my screens and in my city. They were marching for Hamas! The sight of Jewish blood had thrilled them and unleashed their murderousness. They were marching across the streets of America‚ both women and men — for “Palestine.” Everywhere‚ anarchists‚ Islamists‚ lesbians‚ “queers‚” feminists‚ and leftists were creating an auditory nightmare with their multiple drummers‚ multiple whistleblowers‚ and multiple megaphone-users. They chanted incessantly; carried “Palestinian” flags; wore keffiyehs; shut down bridges‚ tunnels‚ and train stations; terrified children in cancer hospitals; and physically and verbally attacked those who were visibly Jewish‚ both in universities‚ on the streets‚ in restaurants‚ and at home. I did not hear these pro-Hamas marchers‚ especially the lesbian‚ “queer‚” and feminist ones‚ calling for an end to rape‚ woman-battering‚ or the persecution of homosexuals and “queers” in Gaza. I saw no signs that condemned honor killing or polygamy. No one called for reproductive freedom for American women or for an Equal Rights Amendment. On Oct. 18‚ I published a piece at the New York Post together with Mandy titled “Response to Hamas horror shows the feminist movement has lost its moral compass.” It was republished widely. No leading American feminist or long-time feminist ally reached out to me. On Oct. 17 and on Oct. 24‚ two Israeli journalists‚ Shalva Weil and Hamutal Gouri‚ respectively‚ published articles in the Israeli media condemning both the UN and Western feminists for their silence and described Hamas’ massacre as “horrific.” On Nov. 23‚ a third Israeli journalist‚ Amelie Botbol‚ described the Oct. 7 massacre as a “horrifying picture of systemic sexual assaults.” Leading American feminist experts on violence against women‚ including rape and rape trauma syndrome‚ still remained silent. On Oct. 23‚ dozens of Israeli women’s groups‚ and some Jewish groups‚ asked UN Women to issue a statement. They wrote‚ “It is unthinkable that a UN agency responsible for women’s rights ignores the abduction of women‚ babies‚ girls‚ children‚ and men … and the murder of over a thousand civilians.” Thus far‚ only Western conservatives‚ Israelis‚ and some Jews stood up for the murdered‚ tortured‚ and kidnapped victims of Oct. 7. On Oct. 26‚ Gloria Steinem’s assistant described the articles that I kept sending as “wonderful” but emailed me that: Right now‚ she’s [Gloria’s] scaling back on all projects and affiliations‚ particularly outside of her true expertise‚ in service of her own writing‚ so can’t be of much more help here‚ but we will happily continue to read and support anything you send. Thanks. Gloria is nearly 90 years old‚ and this may be true. No matter what‚ we go back‚ and I retain a sentimental affection for her. On Oct. 27‚ the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) issued a vague statement concerning “the gender dimension of the conflict.” It wrote: The Committee calls upon all parties to systematically address the gender dimension of conflict. It is deeply concerned that the gendered dimensions of conflict will be significantly exacerbated for women who are internally displaced. I’ve never read such a clear statement — have you? I continued to publish articles about Oct. 7 all through November. On Nov. 23 and 25‚ articles were published at the Times of Israel‚ as well as at MSNBC‚ about the Hamas rapes‚ which all questioned the silence of the UN and of “feminists.” On Nov. 25‚ 49 days after the pogrom/massacre‚ the Washington Post quoted Israeli Police Chief Kobi Shabtai — but also noted that a Hamas official says the “Israeli claims are inaccurate.” On Nov. 29‚ I published another piece at RealClearPolitics titled “The Failure of Western Feminism When It’s Most Needed.” This piece was seen by hundreds of thousands of readers. My feminist allies remained silent. But‚ significantly‚ on Nov. 30‚ Dahlia Lithwick‚ a lawyer‚ journalist‚ and senior editor at Slate (and a Jew)‚ together with five other authors‚ published an important piece at Slate about Oct. 7 — as did journalist and author Christina Lamb in the Times of London just a few days later on Dec. 2. Lamb wrote that a delegation of “Israeli feminists and human rights experts were going to lobby and protest outside UN headquarters. Sheryl Sandberg‚ the former chief operating officers of Facebook will speak.” On Dec. 1‚ the IWF issued a strong statement titled “Independent Women’s Forum And Independent Women’s Voice Decry Rape Of Women And Girls In Israel And Call On All Advocates For Women To Condemn Hamas.” Also on Dec. 1‚ nearly two months after Oct. 7‚ UN Women finally issued a rather vague statement about Israeli and Palestinian women who are at risk of “gender-based violence.” If Palestinian women are being raped — who are the rapists? Surely not members of the IDF. UN Women wrote: “We deeply regret that military operations have resumed in Gaza‚ and we reiterate that all women‚ Israeli women‚ Palestinian women‚ as all others‚ are entitled to a life lived in safety and free from violence.” After this UN style of misleading evenhandedness‚ the statement declared‚ “We unequivocally condemn the brutal attacks by Hamas on Israel.” On Dec. 4‚ the tide of coverage began to turn when philanthropist and technology executive Sheryl Sandberg joined the Israel Mission to the UN’s special session on Hamas’ Oct. 7 rapes‚ torture‚ kidnapping‚ and murder of Israeli civilians. “Silence is complicity … and in the face of terror‚ we cannot be quiet‚” she stated. “That is why we are all here today to speak about unspeakable acts.” On Dec. 4‚ 58 days after the pogrom‚ the left-liberal media began to cover the massacre. On Dec. 5‚ Letty Cottin Pogrebin published a piece titled “Today no jokes‚ memes‚ politics‚ or culture. Just Israel‚ Hamas‚ women &; children” on Substack; she then published a nearly identical piece at the Forward on Dec. 13. In it she challenged the feminist silence about Oct. 7‚ writing‚ “[A]s a Jew and as a woman‚ I refuse to let Hamas’ brutal assault on Israeli women and girls be forgotten in the fog of war.” But‚ she added: I’ve been advocating for Palestinian statehood and protesting the Occupation for more than 30 years. Today‚ I’m belaboring the details of the terrorists’ cruelty not to eclipse the extreme suffering of Palestinians at the hands of Israel but to underscore the lack of outrage or compassion for Jewish suffering at the hands of Hamas. Neat trick. Letty herself was one of the silent feminists. And no one can accuse her of not being sympathetic to Palestinians. Her J-Street-style criticism of Israel was also well known. It was now 60 days after Oct. 7‚ and about 55 days since I first reached out to Gloria Steinem. On Dec. 6‚ Ms. magazine finally provided a “reading list” about the rape of women in many war zones‚ such as the Congo‚ Ethiopia‚ Yemen‚ Syria‚ and Ukraine‚ which also focused on women’s attempts to “wage peace.” Oddly enough‚ the magazine did not include the piece that I wrote for On the Issues magazine in 1995‚ perhaps the first of its kind‚ on the subject of rape as a weapon of war. In it‚ I described rape as “gender cleansing” and documented the use of rape as a political weapon by Muslim men against Muslim and Hindu women in Afghanistan‚ Algeria‚ Bangladesh‚ India‚ Iran‚ and Pakistan. I noted that the UN had remained silent‚ as had Muslim leaders. I wrote: The Bosnian Ambassador to the U.N. said he “could find no [raped] woman in condition to speak.” Alexandra Stiglmayer found the (Bosnian) raped women “broken‚” “intimidated‚” “withdrawn‚” “crying‚” “afflicted with nightmares‚” “insomnia‚” “depression‚” “panic disorders‚” “suicidal.” Way back then‚ I noted: Survivors are haunted by those who heard their screams but turned their backs; those who blamed the victim and collaborated with the rapist/torturer/killer; those who minimized‚ or exaggerated‚ or merely misunderstood what rape or torture is about; those who preached‚ authoritatively‚ righteously‚ against revenge‚ but envisioned no justice. Perhaps it was now safe enough for Democratic Party officials and feminist leaders to issue a statement. And they soon did so. On or about Dec. 10‚ women’s rights leaders and Democratic Party elected functionaries in New York state published a statement. I was told that work on this statement began on Nov. 29‚ and that it took seven days to compose. When I called one of the organizers‚ a very hard-working and decent feminist‚ she apologized for not having initially asked me to sign (I later did so)‚ and I asked if her group had reached out to feminists who had declined to sign it. She said yes. She was reluctant to share these names. I laughed. Then I told her what the names probably were. She was ever so surprised. For example‚ not a single member of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women had signed. It also explained why it took seven days to craft the desired even-handed document. Here is some of their language: We grieve as we witness the heartbreaking anguish of women‚ children‚ and all those who suffer through no fault of their own in both Israel and Gaza. We mourn the deaths of so many Palestinian and Israeli civilians who have been killed in this war. We long for a just peace. To denounce rape as a weapon of war is not to express approval or alignment with the governing coalition in Israel‚ nor does it signal support for the bombings in Gaza. But as feminists we are committed to the universal principle that rape must always be condemned; we bear witness to the mountain of evidence that Hamas and other terrorist groups used rape as a weapon of war against Israeli women and girls; and we demand accountability for crimes that must never be tolerated by the world community. Most of all‚ we stand with the victims of gender-based atrocities‚ with the survivors and with those who did not survive‚ and we raise our voices in solidarity with them. On Dec. 12‚ Biden’s White House condemned Hamas’ refusal to return hostages and their use of rape to terrorize‚ stating‚ “In the weeks since October 7‚ survivors and witnesses have bravely shared accounts of severe sexual violence by Hamas terrorists against women and children in Israel.” Formerly silent Democrats had begun to “own” the story. Did they want to be able to claim that they’d stood up for Israel in order to impress pro-Israel voters? Going forward‚ would the Dec. 10 statement and Letty’s late-in-the-day article allow pro-Biden Democrats to claim that they had decried the Oct. 7 rapes? On Dec. 14‚ Veteran Feminists of America (VFA) (previously constrained by its not-for-profit status) posted a statement on “Rape as a Weapon of War”: “We decry rape at all times‚ and especially as an instrument of war as it was practiced by the terrorist organization‚ Hamas‚ on October 7. VFA opposes all discrimination‚ gender-based violence and all crimes against humanity.” On Dec. 15‚ Marxist-feminist Katha Pollitt followed Letty’s example and challenged the feminist silence in a piece at the Nation. Like Letty‚ Katha herself had been silent for many months. She wrote: This silence sits oddly with how quick our movement has been to credit much iffier claims and to raise consciousness around sexual misconduct that falls far short of rape. What happened to the clarion call to “believe women”? What happened to #metoo?… Where’s the Women’s March? Feminist Majority? The National Women’s Studies Association? On Dec. 19 — 73 days after the massacre — Ms. magazine posted an article that mentioned all victims of gender-based violence‚ especially those from conflict in Afghanistan‚ the Congo‚ Ethiopia‚ Iran‚ South Sudan‚ Sudan‚ Ukraine‚ and Yemen. Geeta Rao Gupta wrote: “We are deeply concerned by the increased risk of [gender-based violence] for women and girls in Gaza and the West Bank as a result of displacement‚ among other factors.” This article only mentioned Israel in the fourth paragraph‚ and then only as part of argument about both Palestinian and Israeli women. The author was trying to normalize (or hide) what happened on Oct. 7 by merging it with other rapes in conflict zones. Subsequently‚ in January‚ at the World Economic Forum in Davos (Jan. 15–19)‚ Israel government officials screened the 48-minute video of pogrom horror to three separate groups; Mandy Sanghera moderated a panel sponsored by Shelley Zalis’ Female Quotient in which rape in Ukraine‚ Afghanistan‚ and Israel was discussed. The families of Israeli hostages spoke on another panel. On Jan. 25‚ four Muslim women (Farhana Khorshed‚ Soraya Deen‚ Raheel Raza‚ and Zainab Khan)‚ three of whom I know and with whom I have worked‚ and one who had been recently funded to visit southern Israel‚ published a piece in Newsweek‚ in which they wrote: We as Muslim women have condemned the Oct.7 attacks…. Our faith demands that we speak out and ensure that there is no justification for these atrocious acts…. Speaking about those crimes is the only way to stand with the victims‚ which is vital to healing for survivors… It seems very likely that bias‚ antisemitism‚ and politics contributed to this silence…. If we‚ as Muslim women‚ do not raise our voices against this‚ we are giving a green light to other extremist groups such as Boko Haram‚ ISIS‚ and Hezbollah‚ who are already emboldened in their acts of terrorism and violence‚ to act like Hamas. On Jan. 31‚ Sheryl Sandberg‚ hosted by Lord John Mendelsohn‚ chaired an event in the House of Lords titled “Stand Against Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in the October 7th Hamas Terror Attack.” Allow me to give Sandberg the last word. In a CNN article published in November‚ she wrote: On October 7‚ Hamas terrorists committed unspeakable atrocities that we must speak about — and speak about loudly. Numerous witnesses have testified that sexual violence was widespread on that day…. Yet some are flat-out denying that these atrocities occurred…. Not loudly condemning the rapes of October 7 — or any rapes — is a massive step backward for the women — and men — of the world….   We must denounce these rapes in every conversation‚ at every rally‚ and on signs held on every street corner. We must forget our conflicting politics and remember our common humanity. Sheryl: Brava! And — Hineni. Here I am‚ together with a small and very precious group of American and Canadian feminist Zionists — we are all ready to support your work in any way. Phyllis Chesler is an emerita professor of psychology at the City University of New York and the author of 20 books‚ including Women and Madness‚ The New Antisemitism‚ and An American Bride in Kabul. She co-founded the Association for Women in Psychology‚ the National Women’s Health Network‚ and the Jerusalem-based Original Women of the Wall. She has conducted four studies about honor killing and also published Devrai Torah. READ MORE on Israel: ‘A Terrible Lot of Lies’: Winston Churchill on Palestine and Israel The Palestinian State of Jordan Can America Survive Israel’s Nuclear Destruction? Israel Should Reject the Palestinian State Snake Oil The post Silence of the Feminist Lambs: Not a Word on Hamas Horrors appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

A new cathedral spire has finally emerged from scaffolding nearly four years after flames engulfed Paris’s storied Notre Dame Cathedral in April 2019. Intense reconstruction efforts began immediately following the accidental blaze‚ which investigators attributed to either an electrical short-circuit or a cigarette. But the fire sparked equally intense debates about how Notre Dame should be rebuilt — and looking to the cathedral’s history for guidance turned up more questions than answers. Medieval Beginnings and Revolutionary Disruptions It all started In 1160‚ when Bishop Maurice de Sully of Paris began plans for a large cathedral in the city dedicated to Mary‚ the mother of God. Three years later‚ builders broke ground for Notre-Dame de Paris with King Louis VII and Pope Alexander III in attendance. Construction spanned several hundred years‚ though the cathedral was mostly finished by 1345. Notre Dame underwent further construction throughout the centuries due to additions and maintenance. More than 400 years later‚ the 18th century proved tumultuous not only for French Catholics but also for their physical churches. Notre Dame was no exception. Revolutionaries seized control of Church property in 1789‚ passed a law requiring clergy to pledge allegiance to the new‚ anti-Catholic French nation‚ destroyed churches and monasteries across the country‚ and established the notorious Cult of Reason. Though it was replaced fairly swiftly by Robespierre’s own Cult of the Supreme Being‚ the short-lived Cult of Reason left a permanent mark on Notre Dame. The cathedral escaped destruction‚ but it was transformed into the Temple of Reason after revolutionaries looted almost everything‚ leaving only the bells.  In 1793‚ the Cult of Reason hosted its anti-Catholic “Festival of Reason” in the church‚ replete with busts of philosophers and a “seductively dressed” woman representing the goddess of liberty. That same fall‚ the French government had ordered an alteration to Notre Dame’s exterior. The west facade of the cathedral held 28 statues portraying biblical kings. Ever unrelenting in their antimonarchist fervor‚ the revolutionaries removed the 500-year-old statues‚ brought them to the cathedral square‚ and ceremoniously decapitated each statue. Notre Dame’s First Restoration Thankfully‚ the revolution didn’t last forever. In 1842‚ France’s newly appointed inspector of historic monuments commissioned the restoration of Notre Dame. He tapped young architect Eugène Viollet-le-Duc to lead the project‚ which lasted until 1864. Much like the architects working to rebuild Notre Dame today‚ Viollet-le-Duc had to determine how to reconcile the Cathedral’s various architectural styles. He left his own imprint on the cathedral‚ adding a few anachronistic elements in his otherwise thorough recreation of the medieval church.  Though Notre Dame had been restored to its former glory‚ the effects of the French Revolution were still palpable. A 1905 law established laïcité‚ a principle of strict separation between church and state — a separation so “strict” and unbridgeable that the state owns the churches. The 1905 law preserved the revolution-era seizure of Church property and recognized churches as state-owned buildings rather than privately held property.  Following the fire in 2019‚ this complicated relationship between church and state came to the forefront of renovation efforts. Owned by the French government‚ occupied by the Catholic Church‚ and claimed symbolically by the French populace‚ the reconstruction has been far from straightforward.  Attempts to Modernize Notre Dame Almost immediately‚ French President Emmanuel Macron proposed the construction of a modern spire. Then–Prime Minister Édouard Philippe announced a competition for “fresh ideas” for the cathedral’s reconstruction. The submissions‚ according to Architectural Digest‚ “ranged from the tasteful and restrained‚ to the borderline inscrutable‚ to social experiments never intended to be built.” Some architects proposed a modern reimagination of the previous spire‚ which had been built by Viollet-de-Luc in his reconstruction‚ but other architects submitted plans for contemporary sculptures‚ a greenhouse‚ and a public swimming pool. (RELATED: France Burns‚ Macron Dances) Though it’s easy to laugh at some of the more ridiculous proposals‚ every step of the reconstruction process has involved serious efforts to modernize the medieval cathedral.  In the early months of reconstruction‚ France’s chief architect of the historic monuments service said that he would “resign rather than allow a modern spire … to be built atop the cathedral’s roof.” He won the argument‚ and the spire revealed this week is nearly identical to the original‚ built with the same construction methods and materials. Only one small change was made: the golden rooster topping the spire has been transformed into a phoenix with flaming wings.  But consensus has not yet been reached on what to do about Notre Dame’s famous chapel windows‚ which were undamaged by the fire. Last December‚ Macron proposed that contemporary stained glass by French artists should replace the chapel windows designed by Viollet-le-Duc in 1859. Once again‚ the selection would occur through a competition. Surprisingly‚ Macron is merely the mouthpiece for the democratization of Notre Dame’s restoration. The local archbishop‚ Laurent Ulrich‚ supports the introduction of contemporary elements to the cathedral. The archbishop explained that he felt the church should not be rebuilt “without leaving a trace of this event [the fire]‚ of this emotion.”  Ulrich proposed the introduction of stained-glass windows that “will remain as signs of our times.” Last summer‚ he approved “new‚ resolutely contemporary liturgical furnishings” for the church that perfectly resemble the drab‚ awkward modern architecture of many post-Vatican II Catholic Churches. One commentator called the new furnishings a “70s Ikea design‚ unworthy of the cathedral’s builders.” As of this week‚ the cathedral remains ensconced in 600 tons of scaffolding and is expected to reopen for the first time since the fire on December 8. The French state might not have Notre Dame’s best interest at heart‚ and the aesthetic sensibilities of the local Catholic Church might leave something to be desired‚ but the cathedral is beloved the world over. The emergence of the newly restored spire this week brings some normalcy back to the Paris skyline‚ blessedly free — for now — of any modern attempts to improve upon the cathedral’s iconic exterior. Mary Frances Myler is a writer from Northern Michigan now living in Washington‚ D.C. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 2022.  READ MORE from Mary Frances Myler:  Polish Prime Minister Pushes Unconstitutional Abortion Bill ‘He Did the Right Thing’: University President Fires Professor Over Abortion Doula Lecture Kamala Harris Stumps for Abortion Ahead of Election The post A Battle Between History and Modernity at Notre Dame Cathedral appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Tucker Carlson Is Wrong About Moscow

America's Dysfunctional Overclass