Displaying the most recent of 92847 posts written by

Ruth King

The Future of American Jewry After October 7 How to find purpose and clarity in horror’s wake by Dan Senor

https://www.commentary.org/articles/dan-senor/american-jewry-after-october-7/

For many of us, October 7 was a wake-up call of sorts, which gave birth to what some have taken to calling “October 8 Jews.” I prefer not to use that term, as it implies that they suddenly became Jews on October 8. 

Nonetheless, there was a crack in Jewish consciousness on October 8, 2023. Suddenly, many Jews began to think differently about their Jewish identity, their Jewish community, and their connection to Jewish peoplehood everywhere—especially in Israel.  Sociologists and Jewish leaders heralded a “surge of interest” in Jewish life. 

People started wearing Jewish stars for the first time. They went to rallies. They donated hundreds of millions to emergency campaigns and sent supplies to IDF units. And the new openness to Jewish identity opened them up to indignation and shock. Over WhatsApp, people forwarded articles by the score in chat groups. I call them the “Can You Believe!?” groups, as in: “Can you BELIEVE Christiane Amanpour aired that segment?” Or “Can you BELIEVE Thomas Friedman trashed Israel again in his column?” In truth, this wasn’t as much a Jewish awakening as an outpouring of Jewish adrenaline. 

And as with adrenaline, I think we can all feel the moment fading with the passage of time. It would be dangerous for us to return to the false sense of security we felt on October 6. 

_____________

Since October 7, I have heard the following two comments more than any other from American Jews.

First: Jews have played key leadership roles in so many pillars of society: finance and Hollywood, hospitals, the environment and civil rights, the arts, symphonies, museums and elite universities. How could they turn on us?

We hear this all the time. We Jews have collectively spent so much, even named wings after ourselves at these institutions. But, historically speaking, none of this has mattered in stemming the tide of anti-Semitism. No, in fact, our perceived power is deployed against us in these periods. Jews in the Diaspora have too often been, as Douglas Murray says, prominent but weak. 

Murray’s observation calls to mind The Pity of It All, Amos Elon’s 2002 chronicle of German Jews from the mid-18th century until Hitler’s rise in 1933—timely today because it shatters so many of our comfortable narratives about progress, assimilation, and the supposed safety of living in an educated society. Elon shows how, over nearly two centuries, German Jews transformed themselves from marginalized peddlers and cattle dealers into the intellectual, cultural, and economic backbone of German society. They didn’t just assimilate—they excelled. A community that never was more than 1 percent of the German population produced bankers, journalists, artists, industrialists, and academics whose contributions to the flourishing of Germany are well documented.

They believed in Germany. They believed in Enlightenment values. They believed that reason and education would triumph over prejudice. They were wrong.

Mark Levin gives Tucker Carlson a well-deserved dressing-down Ruthie Blum

https://www.jns.org/mark-levin-gives-tucker-carlson-a-well-deserved-dressing-down/

Tucker Carlson is a master of disingenuousness, to put it generously. That’s why the only viewers still charmed by his trademark deer-in-the-headlights act are those on the right who champion the conspiracy theorists and antisemites to whom he regularly provides a platform.

Some of his interviewees are overt Jew-haters; others covert ones who pretend that their only beef is with “Israeli policy.”  You know, just like a huge swath of the Democratic Party that they loathe.

Tucker’s neat trick, no longer so tidy, is to react to critics—fellow supporters of President Donald Trump with a whole different take on foreign policy—by engaging in not-so-plausible deniability where his true feelings about Jews and the Jewish state are concerned. One method is to refer to the Tribe as “neocons.”

Never mind that the isolationists in the MAGA camp purposely abuse the term or are willfully ignorant about its origin. Neoconservatism was the name given to a movement of liberal intellectuals who opposed the tenets of the New Left—the “woke” of the 1960s and ’70s—and shifted allegiance to the Republican Party.

Ironically, they were the “Make America Great Again” crowd of that period, and instrumental in Ronald Reagan’s 1980 victory over Jimmy Carter. Many, but by no means all, were Jews.

A key element of their patriotism had to do with American greatness, exceptionalism and power on the world stage (does “peace through strength” sound familiar?). Rejecting détente and taking a tough stand against the Soviet Union, in order to win the Cold War, were central.

That defeating one’s enemies has become a dirty concept for the likes of Tucker and his echo chamber—who use the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan to accuse backers of U.S. intervention in the Middle East of “war-mongering”—is suspicious, to say the least.

It’s one thing to conclude that spreading democracy among Islamist regimes is problematic, if not impossible. It’s something else entirely to attribute the mistake to “neocon” trigger-happiness. Unless, of course, the aim is to blame Israel for “dragging” the United States into battles on behalf of the Jews.

Ian Kingsbury New Documentary Proves Trump Is Right to Defund PBS The film uses discredited research to blame racism for black health disparities and push ideologically driven “solutions.”

https://www.city-journal.org/article/trump-defund-pbs-racism-black-americans-health-documentary

Paula Kerger, CEO of PBS, wasted no time in condemning President Trump’s May 2 executive order cutting federal funding for the public broadcaster. Defunding her organization, she declared, “threatens our ability to serve the American public with educational programming.” Only days earlier, however, PBS had aired just the kind of ideologically biased documentary that demonstrates why Trump is right to defund the network.

The documentary, Critical Condition: Health in Black America, focuses on a real and important problem: on average, health outcomes for black Americans are worse than those for people of other races. But instead of addressing the real causes of this crisis—namely group differences in diet, exercise, and health literacy—the documentary settles on the false, simplistic narrative peddled by activists that all differences in health outcomes must be caused by racism.

The documentary largely focuses on racial differences in maternal mortality—in particular, on differences in the incidence of preeclampsia—as evidence of systemic racism. But the biological predisposition for preeclampsia in black women, well-established in the medical literature, is never mentioned. In other words, the documentary misleads black mothers and valorizes shoddy social science over the rigorous research that could actually reduce racial disparity.

The documentary also fixates on racism in its discussion of medical algorithms, claiming that adjusting for race in tests of biological functioning serves no purpose other than reinforcing race as a biological construct. This is pure nonsense. Race-based adjustments demonstrably improve the precision of clinical algorithms. For example, African ancestry is associated with lower lung volumes and higher levels of muscle mass. When clinical algorithms don’t acknowledge these realities, they result in less accurate diagnoses of asthma, kidney disease, and other conditions.

The antidotes that the documentary proposes for the alleged systemic racism in medicine are equally unscientific. The film gives a fawning depiction of “implicit bias training” at Charles Drew University of Medicine, accompanied by a call for medical schools to increase their adoption of such activities. But research shows that implicit bias is neither detectable nor fixable. Trainings on this topic are thus completely unproductive—though they do serve to enrich the “diversity industrial complex.”

The documentary also calls for a greater focus on the racial composition of the health-care workforce. It arrives at this conclusion by citing research that allegedly shows minority patients receive better care from racially concordant doctors. This is yet another false claim that relies on a combination of cherry-picked studies and ideologically driven, methodologically unsound research, as I have shown in a report for Do No Harm.

Heather Mac Donald The Battle Against Identity Politics on Campuses Has Only Begun Even as Trump targets Harvard over racial preferences, the university is offering a seminar, “Empowering Black Leaders,” steeped in racialist thinking.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/harvard-university-empowering-black-leaders-seminar-race-trump

The effort to extirpate identity politics from universities will be a slog. Even as the Trump administration scrutinizes Harvard University for its racial preferences and cuts another $450 million in federal grants, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government is offering a three-day seminar called “Empowering Black Leaders: Strategies for Personal and Professional Success.” Topics include “Navigating bias in the workplace,” “Intersectionality in its various forms,” “Racial equity in policing,” and “Employee resource groups.”

That last phrase is a euphemism for affinity groups, those identity-based organizations in schools and businesses that came into vogue over a decade ago. Affinity groups allegedly allow intersectional individuals to collectively protect their identities against bias. Kennedy School organizers and other human-resources types are hoping that a new name will shake off the separatist associations from the original term.

Empowering Black Leaders is led by a diversity consultant, “one of the world’s leading experts,” as the program brochure puts it, on the “science underlying bias and racism in organizations.” Robert Livingston encapsulated his world-class expertise on institutional racism in a 2022 book, The Conversation: How Seeking and Speaking the Truth about Racism Can Radically Transform Individuals and Organizations. Speaking the truth about racism in a corporate leadership seminar means addressing the topic “Racial equity in policing,” since racist police, one is to assume, impede black managers’ ability to climb the corporate ladder.

The Kennedy School has tried to Trump-proof Empowering Black Leaders by noting that a “person’s race/ethnicity is not a criterion for admission.” The program materials even posit a scenario where non-black allies (another academic coinage) enroll in the program so as to “allow them and the Black colleagues they are supporting to thrive.” Such allyship doesn’t come cheap. The course costs $6,900. Are businesses going to shell out close to $7,000 a head to send their black managers and their white allies to learn about the businesses’ alleged racism? In the pre-Trump world, quite possibly. Today, less so. Though the application deadline was April 29, 2025, as of May 14, the Kennedy School was still soliciting applications.

Despite the effort to be just sufficiently color-blind enough to pass muster from an anti-DEI federal funder, assumptions about racial hierarchy are baked into the program. The seminar is designed for “mid-senior level leaders in North American, Europe, and similarly structured societies,” according to the program brochure. What “similar structure” might that be? Elite-dominated? Welfare-statist? Demographically self-cancelling? No, the common link between North American and European “societies” is their embrace of white supremacy. Thus, any black professionals living on those “similarly structured” continents need consultant-provided tools for overcoming what the program refers to as “commonly shared obstacles” to advancement.

The Great Simmering in the West By J.B. Shurk

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/05/the_great_simmering_in_the_west.html

So-called ‘elites’ have built a dark and volatile world.

People all over the world are worried about the future.  While regional wars continue to fester, the prospect of global war weighs heavily on many.  However, likely belligerents are not all foreign aggressors.  Nearly a century of globalization has erected a web of clunky international institutions that wield tremendous power while disregarding sovereign borders.  Concomitantly, mass immigration has transformed once-homogenous national populations into stews of many competing cultures and religions.  Battle lines forming inside nations are more serious than those forming among them.

Self-described “futurists” such as Bill Gates and Yuval Harari believe that artificial intelligence will soon replace most humans in the workforce and that a small cadre of global “elites” must centrally manage humanity’s transition to general “uselessness.”  With A.I. entities independently running machines and becoming exponentially smarter and more competent in their tasks, entire industries will transition from human to synthetic labor until all industry surrenders to A.I.  

As emerging robotics programs have demonstrated, no profession will be immune to the next generations of A.I.-equipped machines.  Robots will pick the fields, police the streets, and perform complex medical surgeries.  A.I. can already write legal briefs that pass muster and screenplays that are at least as interesting as anything Hollywood produces these days.  Engineers, architects, and chemists are competing against machines that can process a thousand lifetimes of computations before their human counterparts finish morning coffee.

Men such as Gates and Harari see this future galloping toward us and view its implications as self-evident.  As human producers are replaced, human “value” will dwindle.  No longer sustaining even a fraction of their cost through their own labor, human beings will become extraneous to the creation of wealth and permanent drains on the global State.  

Qatar & Influence Operations and Saudi Arabia & Influence Operations Let’s refresh. Diana West

https://dianawest.substack.com/p/qatar-and-influence-operations-and?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2175125&post_id=163628450&utm

Before there was Qatar & influence operations, there was Saudi Arabia & influence operations. If it is Qatar is in the headlines for buying politicians, media, universities, and for its terrorist connections, Saudi Arabia was making the same headlines and more (anyone remember 9/11?) a few years ago. Don’t look now, but Saudi’s Alwaleed bin Talal is a constant player. For starters, he was Fox’s No. 2 owner then, and he is Twitter’s No 2 owner today. Meanwhile, according to Forbes, Qatar threw a few hundred million dollars into Elon’s Twitter purchase as well. Who knows?

Maybe, we are all Qataris now.

How did this happen? Some rather important part of it starts with Alwaleed’s buy into the leading American conservative media network, Fox News, over twenty years ago. The Saudi stake would grow to 7 percent, second only to holdings of the Murdoch family. I am posting a syndicated newspaper column I wrote on the subject in 2010. The whole thing bothered me then as it all bothers me, and greatly in this week of Trump’s Arabian Processional, about which I will have more to say. For now, the 2010 column, posted below, will serve as a refresher course — and for me, as well.

I will note that this column and hundreds more are collected in my 2013 book, No Fear.

Should Fox News register with the State Department as a foreign agent — an agent of Saudi Arabia? by Diana West, February 7, 2010

First off, is that a farfetched question? Not when a leading member of the ruling family of the Sharia-totalitarian “kingdom” of Saudi Arabia, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, has made himself the second-largest shareholder of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., Fox News’ parent company.

Just as Steven Emerson believes that American universities using Saudi mega-millions (many from Alwaleed) to set up Islamic studies departments should register as Saudi agents, I believe an American news channel part-owned and part-influenced by the Saudi prince should, too.

At Home With the Holocaust A scholarly exploration of the complex ways traumatic memory is passed intergenerationally. by Danusha V. Goska

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/at-home-with-the-holocaust/

On March 11, 2025, Rutgers University Press released At Home with the Holocaust: Postmemory, Domestic Space, and Second-Generation Holocaust Narratives by Lucas F. W. Wilson, PhD. At Home is 188 pages long, inclusive of an index, end notes, and a bibliography. The book’s goal is to analyze how children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors are traumatized by their parents’ and grandparents’ experiences. The book focuses on how homes – that is, houses and geographic locations – can transmit trauma from one generation to the next.

In an online biography, author Wilson says, “I am the Justice, Equity, and Transformation Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Calgary.” On a University of Calgary page, Wilson follows his name with “Pronouns: he/him/his.” In an interview, Wilson says, “My work has largely centered on the Holocaust, but given the rise in anti-queer and anti-trans violence, public policy, and legislation, I redirected my attention on a main catalyst of homophobia and transphobia today: white Christian nationalism …  Both the Holocaust and conversion therapy are inextricably connected to Christianity … The Christian scriptures and Christian theology laid the seedbed for the Holocaust … Christianity has so easily lent itself to such hatred.” Christians have “genocidal intentions” toward GLBT people, Jews, and “Indigenous folks in North America.”

Wilson, though young, is an exceptionally successful scholar, enjoying a degree of financial support and accolades that most scholars can only dream of. “I have received several fellowships and awards for my work.” An incomplete list of his honors: The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi’s Dissertation Fellowship; a European Holocaust Research Infrastructure Fellowship; The Rabbi Ferdinand Isserman Memorial Fellowship from the American Jewish Archives; a Regent Scholarship, two Edwin L. Stockton, Jr., Graduate Scholarships from Sigma Tau Delta International English Honor Society, an Auschwitz Jewish Center Fellowship, and a Zaglembier Society Scholarship awarded by The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies.

At Home with the Holocaust has received high praise. Scholar and author Victoria Aarons says that the book “makes a vital contribution to the research on second and third-generation Holocaust descendants with the Holocaust meets the needs of a reader happily immersed and unquestioningly invested in academic trends in writing styles, thought processes, ideology, and ethics. I am not that reader. This book exemplifies serious problems in contemporary academia, as I will detail in the review, below. First, a word on why I care about this topic.

As soon as I saw the Rutgers University Press ad for this new book, I was eager to read it. I have been swimming in the water of post-World-War-Two trauma for my entire life. I’m a baby boomer, a drop in the post-World-War-II demographic surge. I didn’t give it much thought in my childhood, but I was surrounded by post-war trauma.

Trump Unveils “America First National Security 2.0” During Visit to the Arabian Gulf In Riyadh, Trump unveiled an “America First 2.0” doctrine—favoring trade over war, diplomacy over regime change, and peace through prosperity in a new world order. By Fred Fleitz

https://amgreatness.com/2025/05/16/trump-unveils-america-first-national-security-2-0-during-visit-to-the-arabian-gulf/

President Trump’s trip this week to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was a great success for many reasons. The trip was also historic due to a speech he gave in Saudi Arabia outlining his America First foreign policy, which could transform global security.

In this speech, delivered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on May 13, Trump unveiled his second-term approach to foreign policy that might be called “America First National Security 2.0.”

Most of Trump’s America First approach to U.S. foreign affairs is well known. He has called for putting the interests of our country and the American people first in national security policies. Trump wants a strong military but has pledged to use military force prudently to keep our country out of new and unnecessary wars. He has condemned bad treaties favored by the foreign policy establishment, like the Paris Climate Accord, that will have no effect on the global climate but will do serious damage to the American economy.

In his Riyadh speech, President Trump doubled down on his previous America First national security policies with a revolutionary plan to promote stability and peace through economic prosperity in the Middle East and around the world. Deputy opinion editor of Newsweek Batya Ungar-Sargon explained the significance of this speech in a May 13 tweet.

“Anyone hoping to understand President Trump’s foreign policy should watch his whole speech, probably the most momentous foreign policy address of my lifetime. Trump is building a new world order. I would encourage our allies to watch it closely so as not to miss out on what could turn out to be a once in a lifetime opportunity.”

The central theme of Trump’s “new world order” is promoting global security through trade and prosperity. The president said he favored “commerce, not chaos” and a new Middle East that “exports technology, not terrorism, and where people of different nations, religions, and creeds are building cities together, not bombing each other out of existence.”

To facilitate this vision, President Trump noted that the sophisticated and gleaming cities of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were built by visionary Arab leaders who developed their countries in their own ways and consistent with their heritages. He stressed that these countries succeeded due to the hard work of their citizens and not because of Western military intervention, nation-builders, neocons, or liberal nonprofits.

Grinding Down The Great Green Grift

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/05/16/grinding-down-the-great-green-grift/

For Democrats, green policies are a blunt object to be used for taking down capitalism and controlling the economy. They are also a magnificent vehicle for graft. It’s encouraging to see the Trump administration cracking down on the latter.

As his last days in the White House were nearing, Joe Biden, or whoever controlled his autopen, handed out $100 billion in loans and other financial commitments to bolster what’s been called the “Green New Deal wish list.” The funds were dispersed by the Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office in the 76 days after Kamala Harris lost the election. To understand how extraordinary and suspicious this was, that same office distributed a little more than $40 billion in its first 15 years of existence, says Energy Secretary Christopher Wright.

“If those were great ideas that were a benefit to America, why didn’t they do it in the two-and-one-half years after the Inflation Reduction Act was passed?” Wright asked last week on a Fox Business segment with Maria Bartiromo. “Why did they wait until they lost the election? They changed terms and loan covenants. They basically tried to set bombs to make it hard for us to unwind the mess they created.”

The answer, which Wright knows, is that it was an act of sabotage but primarily a grift. Democrats are well seasoned in doling out taxpayers’ money to favored groups. There’s no need to think back any further than a couple of months ago when the new administration began to root out the racket known as the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has propped up the Democratic political machine and has the appearance of a criminal organization.

On its way out, the Biden administration also “parked” $20 billion “at an outside financial institution,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin said in February. “This scheme was the first of its kind in EPA history, and it was purposefully designed to obligate all of the money in a rush job with reduced oversight.”

It appears the $20 billion was part of the Biden plan to toss “gold bars off the Titanic” to get money to the “right people” before Biden had to leave the White House. Zeldin promised his office would “review every penny that has gone out the door.”

“The days of irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far-left, activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over,” he said.

The Real First 100 Days Trump’s first 100 days mark a chaotic counterrevolution, tackling crises long ignored—and infuriating the very forces that allowed them to fester. By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2025/05/15/the-real-first-100-days/

Pundits are confused about what to make of the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.

Supporters talk of “flooding the zone,” believing Trump is making so many changes so quickly that his opposition is reduced to deer-in-the-headlights infancy.

They must be right when the nation suffers daily Democratic pottymouth videos, vandalism of Teslas, infantile meltdowns at congressional witnesses, rioting against federal agents to protect illegal alien felons, protesting on behalf of women beaters, M-13 gangbangers, human traffickers, and assaulters, and visa-holding violent students praising Hamas terrorists.

In contrast, opponents either claim that Trump’s first three months are either directionless chaos or a Hitlerian nightmare or both.

But what is really happening?

One, Trump is finally addressing the problems that proverbially “cannot go on forever, and so they won’t go on.”

When, if ever, would the left have closed the southern border? After 10, 30, 50 million illegal aliens?

How many more criminal illegal entrants was the Biden administration willing to allow into American neighborhoods—500,000? 1 million? 3 million?

How long was the world simply going to ignore the human destruction on the doorstep of Europe?

Would Biden or Harris have sought a ceasefire? Or would it have taken another 1.5, 3, or even 5 million more dead, wounded, and missing Ukrainians and Russians?

Nor did past administrations ever seek a solution to the massive national debt, much less the uncontrollable budget and trade deficits.

All prior presidents passed the day of judgment on to some vague future presidency, assured that their money printing would at least not blow up on their watch.

All moaned that China was piling up huge trade surpluses while denying its own population the usual modern safety net. They knew Beijing’s aim was to use the trillions of dollars in trade surpluses to build a new massive military, a greater arsenal of nuclear bombs, and a new imperial Belt and Road overseas empire.

Yet no administration did anything but greenlight American outsourcing and offshoring while ignoring Chinese trade cheating and technology theft.