headerphoto


UC Beserkeley Is Still Beserkely-and Anti-Jewish




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Checking out the latest news from UC Berkeley, we note that nothing has changed when it comes to anti-Israel and anti-Jewish agitation. In the first article running this week in the campus fishwrap, Daily Californian, we learn that the pro-Palestinian mob, specifically, the oddly named Jewish Voice for Peace, is upset over President Trump's executive order on campus anti-Semitism. I added a comment in the reader thread to the effect that JVP is a bunch of misfits who have linked up with those who would wipe Israel off the map and remove all Jews from the Holy Land if they could.

https://www.dailycal.org/2019/12/16/uc-berkeley-student-group-protests-executive-order-on-anti-semitism/

Next we have an op-ed by the president of the Cal Berkeley Democrats against hate speech. What the writer means is that conservative speakers should be banned from campus- as well as those menacing campus cops (who, in reality, just stand around while students disrupt conservative speaking events).

https://www.dailycal.org/2019/12/07/campus-must-stand-united-against-hate-speech/


And from Algemeiner, we learn about a pro-Palestinian display honoring Palestinian murderers like Rasmea Odeh. And Bears for Palestine have the temerity to complain about the "constant fear" they feel on campus.

https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/12/16/anti-zionist-students-at-uc-berkeley-condemned-for-display-showcasing-palestinian-hijacker-bombers/

You talk about a place where the inmates run the institution.

The Europeans Keep Rejecting Liberty

by Robert Curry: Modern continental Europe keeps trying to solve its political problem — and then to impose its solution on everyone within reach. Recognizing this historical process can help us understand European anti-Americanism, strongest perhaps in Germany. America created the Europeans' political predicament, and we keep preventing them from adopting the solutions they come up with.

America created the Europeans' political problem by the magnificent example of the American Revolution and the astonishing, world-changing success of America. In an interesting version of the story of the emperor's new clothes, rule by hereditary monarchs, hereditary aristocracies, and established churches was suddenly revealed to be absurd and indefensible.

The only problem was that continental Europe was for the most part incapable of self-rule. The attempts, for example, by Germany, Italy, and France to achieve reasonably stable regimes of rule by their own people would be comical but for the terrible human consequences of their repeated failures.

With the exception of the Netherlands and a few other European countries that, like Britain, have achieved rule by their own people, the modern history of continental Europe is the story of people trying various experiments in an ongoing effort to relieve themselves of the burden of self-rule.

For a while, it seemed certain that fascism was going to be the European solution. The Germans and the Italians took the lead, but there were at the same time homegrown fascist movements throughout Europe, even in Britain. The French earned from Homer Simpson the sobriquet "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" because of their feeble resistance to the Nazi invaders and their swift adoption of a policy of collaboration with their Nazi rulers. If it weren't for America's military intervention, the Nazis would likely have defeated Britain, and fascist Europe would have reached from Ireland's western shore to Moscow and beyond.

The crushing military defeat of fascist Germany and fascist Japan took the fascist solution off the table. What were the Europeans to do? Next up: communism.

WWII resulted in only the western portion of Europe not being swallowed up by the Soviets. Once again, as with fascism, there were homegrown communist movements and sympathizers everywhere in Europe outside the Soviet-ruled zone. Communist Europe would likely have had that same western border in Ireland considered above — except once again for the United States. America kept a military presence in Europe after the war, preventing the Soviets from snapping up what remained of Europe not already under their control.

The Americans did not simply prevent a Soviet takeover of Europe. The American example destroyed communism's claim to legitimacy as surely as America's example had destroyed the European monarchs' claim to rule. The collapse of the Soviet Union robbed the Europeans of a communist future.

The Americans had done it to them again.

What now is next to be tried? Islam. Bernard Lewis, the great scholar of Islam and no enemy of Western civilization, predicted an Islamic Europe some time ago, and an Islamic Europe is now coming on much faster than when he made that prediction. Muhammad is the most common name given to baby boys in cities throughout Europe, even in Britain.

Once again, as in WWI and WWII, the Germans are taking the lead. Because Germany dominates the European Union, the open border policy imposed on Europe by Angela Merkel is responsible for a massive Muslim invasion of Europe — and this time the invaders don't need to brush past feeble military resistance or even use weapons. The invaders only need to show up and apply for welfare, leaving them with plenty of free time to plot the takeover of the West. An earlier generation of the French at least had feebly resisted the Nazi invasion before surrendering.

However, there are developments that raise the possibility that Europeans will yet save themselves by a sensible nationalism. There is, for example, Brexit, the important precursor to President Trump's election in 2016. The people of Britain voted to reclaim British national sovereignty and to restore the integrity of Britain's borders. In addition, there are nationalist stirrings in Germany that may turn out to be part of a broader European rejection of a future under the rule of Islam.

Perhaps the prospect of an Islamic Europe can yet rally Europeans to the defense of Western civilization. If nations in Europe can muster the spirited belief that their nations are worth defending, they may yet hold off the moral and intellectual corruption of radical Islam. It is very much the hope of lovers of liberty everywhere that they do so.
------------------
Robert Curry serves on the Board of Directors of the Claremont Institute. He is the author of Common Sense Nation: Unlocking the Forgotten Power of the American Idea and just released Reclaiming Common Sense: Finding Truth in a Post-Truth WorldAmerican Thinker.

Tags: Europeans, keep rejecting. Liberty, Robert Curry, American Thinker To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

UC Santa Cruz Middle East Propaganda Center's New Head




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com



Along with the various ethnic, gender, LGBQ, and women's studies departments on university campuses, the Middle East Studies departments tend to be the worst when it comes to propaganda and indoctrination. In recent years, many of them have been funded with Saudi money. In some cases, they have been established with Saudi money. They routinely specialize in anti-Western, anti-Israel, pro-Arab, pro-Islamic BS. They are one of the leading causes of the wave of anti-Semitism sweeping our campuses. In short, they are an embarrassment to the very concept of education and scholarship.

So it is hardly surprising that UC Santa Cruz (America's Wackiest University) would choose another dime-a-dozen anti-Israel, pro-BDS activist to head up their new Center for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Meet Jennifer Derr.

 https://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/60085/uc-santa-cruz-taps-prof-who-pushed-the-academic

How refreshing it would be to see a Middle East studies department chaired by someone who is pro-Israel. For that matter, even a professor or two would be helpful.

As pointed out by Campus Watch, Derr taught a class in 2014 entitled, "The History of Palestine: From Colonialism to Occupation." Gee, where have I heard that before? She should been fired for plagiarism. What's next, a class on the History of the Lost City of Atlantis?

Or how about this?

"Jennifer Derr’s work explores the configuration and experience of the colonial state in Egypt through its construction of the agricultural environments that lined the banks of the Nile River. Derr traces the intersections of the colonial state in Egypt with the material experiences of environmental infrastructure, resource allocation, disease, and  the geographies of colonial capitalism."

Far be it from me to debate Middle East history with Derr (who has lived ten years in the region). Her area of expertise seems to be in disease outbreaks that occurred in Egypt in the 20th century, which she links to colonial agriculture (in this case, the Brits) and Nile dam construction. I am not arguing the history because I am not qualified, but do I sense a bit of post-colonial emphasis here on blaming all of the problems of the Middle East on the West, colonialism and capitalism? Just asking. After all, that is a large part of Middle East studies teaching in our universities. 

Of course, if Derr is such an expert on the Middle East, some wise guy like me (who is not) might ask the learned professor why she doesn't support a boycott of say, Syria, Sudan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia or virtually every other country in the region besides Israel. I would even throw in neighboring countries like Iran and Turkey.

UCSC's own announcement of the establishment of this center, which is also linked in the above CW article, also raised my eyebrows a bit. Particularly this item:

"In addition to the support of faculty in various divisions, this campaign had the full support of the Jewish Studies Program.
“One cannot have a complete understanding of the Jewish past without studying the Middle East and North Africa; likewise, one cannot have a complete understanding of the MENA without studying the region's Jews,” said Alma Heckman, assistant professor of history and Jewish Studies, and the Neufeld-Levin Chair of Holocaust Studies at UC Santa Cruz.
“Since the ancient past, Jews have lived across the MENA region, from Morocco to Iran and everywhere in between,” she added. “Jewish Studies and MENA Studies are inherently complementary. Working in tandem with the UCSC Center for Jewish Studies, the new MENA Center enriches the unique programmatic offerings at UCSC that connect across Jewish and MENA studies.” 

Working in tandem? I can't wait to see how that works out. I know nothing about Dr Heckman, and I agree with her words in the second paragraph. However, I seriously wonder how any Jewish studies department, given the current climate and state of Middle East studies departments in the US, could welcome the establishment of such a center at UCSC, especially when it is headed by a supporter of BDS.

This new center is new. Both it and its director deserve a chance to show how they will proceed. Perhaps, MENA and the Jewish studies department will work harmoniously together. Perhaps, MENA will teach serious scholarship and not just be a propaganda center against the West and Israel. I would be surprised if that turns out to be the case, but I am willing to wait and see. (What else can Little Ol' Me do?) If my suspicions are proved correct, maybe the Department of Education will take a close look at UCSC given President Trump's inclination to cut funding for universities that tolerate anti-Semitism.



Arrogance on Parade




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com



Pamela Karlan


I watched much but not all of the impeachment hearings today, and to me, the Democrats did not help their case for impeachment. Not only did they not move the needle in terms of changing anybody's opinion, especially those in Congress who will be voting, they gave the American public a view of academic arrogance with their 4 law professors who testified about whether Trump legally deserved to be impeached. (At least, that's the case with at least 2 of them. Three were pro-impeachment, and one -called by the Republicans- was against impeachment.)

Stanford Law School Professor Pamela Karlan and Harvard Law School Professor Noah Feldman came across as highly partisan, impassioned and arrogant advocates for removing President Trump. Karlan was especially shrill-yes, shrill- with her rants against Trump, even going so far as to make a joke at the expense of the President's son, Barron. (She later apologized, but added that she wished Trump would apologize for things he has said.) She said she was insulted that a Republican member of the committee had commented that she and the other three witnesses were not fact witnesses since they had no personal knowledge of the facts of the case other than having read them. Several times, it seemed she was about to lose her composure.

In contrast, Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School, a liberal himself who voted against Trump, but who was called as a witness by the Republicans because he opposes this impeachment, showed class. Having watched him on TV for years, I consider him articulate and intellectually honest. He made his points very effectively, quite the opposite from Karlan, who when she wasn't railing against Trump, seemed to spend half of her time telling us about the law in Merry Olde England and someone named the Sheriff of Windsor. In short, she embarrassed herself. Feldman reminded me of one of those "I'll fight for you" lawyer commercials we see on TV all the time.

Who's next, Michael Avenatti?