From the Telegraph

A summer camp sponsored by an Islamic charity accused of backing Iran could expose children to extremist views, it has been claimed.

The camp, run by the Ahlulbayt Islamic Mission (AIM) charity, is aimed at children aged nine to 14, with activities including climbing and ­abseiling along with “lectures and discussions”.

AIM describes Camp Wilayah, which is set to take place in Kings Langley, Hertfordshire, next month, as an “amazing place to enjoy the outdoors, make new friends, learn and build on Islamic values”. It promotes the four-day camp as “a unique opportunity to explore your true potential amidst the serenity of nature and an Islamic ambience!”

Girls who attend are required to wear the hijab and are segregated from the boys, other than for daily prayers, talks and a team photo.

In an indication of the kinds of activities children at Camp Wilayah are likely to take part in, one AIM video posted on Instagram shows a group of young boys and girls drawing and colouring in Palestinian flags and watermelon symbols.  The children, described as Mahdi’s Little Believers, can also be seen making kites – in an apparent reference to the paragliders used by Hamas on October 7 to attack southern Israel. (to be fair, kite flying is a genuine hobby in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or was until forbidden by the Taliban) 

In social media posts AIM, based in Cricklewood, north-west London, repeatedly praises the leader of Iran’s theocratic regime, Ayatollah Khamenei, declaring that his books are “an excellent source of knowledge and a great read”, and refuses to condemn Hamas.

It also posted material shortly after the October 7 attacks stating that “the Zionists brought this disaster upon themselves”.

Legal lobby group UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) … warned that it “is being hosted by a group that openly promotes the revolutionary Islamist ideology of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei”.

It has written to Brent council, where AIM is based, and Hertfordshire council, where Camp Wilayah is to be held, warning councillors: “There is compelling reason to believe that the event may be used as a platform to radicalise children, incite hatred or violence, and glorify terrorist ideology.”

The group goes on to claim that “of particular concern is AIM’s use of social media to disseminate extremist content that is anti-Semitic and conspiratorial”.  One video, titled “Know Thy Enemy” features a speaker describing Jews as the “harshest”, “squatters”, “settlers” and “violent”, while accusing Israel, the so-called “squatter state”, of having a policy of murdering children. It also calls moderate Muslims who may be tolerant of Israel “filth”.

Lord Walney, the government’s former extremism adviser, has raised his concerns over plans to stage Camp Wilayah this summer, saying: “We cannot allow propaganda and influence from this theocratic dictatorship to be spread to children in the UK.”

A spokesperson for Hertfordshire county council said: “We are aware of concerns around this planned activity camp, and we are working with partners to understand the situation and whether it raises any safeguarding issues.”

Phasels Wood Activity centre where this is planned to take place is owned by the Scout Association and leased by them to Hertfordshire Scout County. They will hire to organisations such as the Girl Guides, Brownies, Schools and Youth clubs. It sounds like they have not done due diligence on this group (I hope it is an oversight and not ideological agreement on the part of the bookings manager) 

If any readers would like to contact Phasels Wood or Hertfordshire Scout County to point out how undesireable this group is, and how incompatible with the traditional aims of scoutning, the addresses are
Phasels Wood Activity Centre, Rucklers Lane, Kings Langley, Herts, WD4 9NA
Telephone 0208 236 0040 e-mail [email protected]

Or

County Office, Well End Activity Centre, Borehamwood, Herts, WD6 5PR 0208 236 0040 or the email message box at the very bottom right of  their home page

I’m sure they would love to hear from you before this summer camp goes horribly wrong.

By Roger L Simon

Rome, Athens aren’t what they were. New York next?

What is to happen to New York—and for that matter to Los Angeles and a host of lesser but still important American cities? I have been thinking about that for some time—particularly after the recent LA fires that have barely been repaired— but have started to obsess about it with the rise of Zohran Mamdani in the NY mayoralty race.

Mamdani seems a prototype of what we used to call online a “useful idiot,” a phrase ascribed to Lenin, although, like so many similar, no one seems to be able to locate evidence of his having used that precise language. No matter. In this instance it’s pretty accurate anyway.

Mamdani, the well-heeled (aren’t they always) son of a filmmaker and and a Columbia professor, is 33 and claims to be a socialist, 33 being about ten years too senior for such a belief that is somewhat excusable in one’s early twenties. Thereafter, one wonders about the ability to recognize reality. No one I have ever met has ever been able to point to a truly successful economy that is socialistic or communistic. Even Communist China essentially abandoned that several decades ago in all but rhetoric in favor of totalitarian oligarchy..

But Mr. Mandani thinks it will work in New York All you have to do is employ the word “democratic” in front (as if), give out the usual freebees in rent, transportation and a new one in government grocery stores (don’t ask), add more than a soupçon of antisemitism and voila.

Which brings us back to an actual, verifiable quote from Lenin, “What Is to Be Done” —in case this charismatic (to some) smiling doofus actually wins.

I have just read Benjamin Kerstein’s response to the problem on his “No Delusions, No Despair” Substack under the title “New York’s Jews after Mamdani’s Victory”. Mr. Kerstein contends NY’s Jews should organize and emulate the opposition to the notorious Labour Party antisemite Jeremy Corbyn in the UK.

Very respectfully (and that’s not just rhetoric; I respect Kerstein as a man and a writer) I disagree and have a radically different solution. I wrote the following lengthy comment on his Substack that I will copy here. But before I do so, it’s important to note that although this is largely about Jews, it is hardly exclusively so. Many gentiles will be leaving New York for similar reasons, possibly an equal or even greater number.

Mr Kerstein, I have been reading you for some time but subscribed so I could add to this discussion that I have already addressed in a sarcastic manner on my own Substack under the title “Imagine New York without Jews”. It featured an AI cartoon of Sinatra singing New York, New York… “Start spreading the news… New York has no Jews!”

I was obviously making the point that should Mamdani win the mayoralty, many Jews would flee NYC. Unlike you, I think this is a good idea. I am not that much of admirer of the war on the wretched Corbyn, successful as that may have been. The UK remains a hotbed of antisemitism and Islamism and is not, in my view, to be imitated. As one who was born in Manhattan, lived decades in LA as a screenwriter, and now in Nashville, New York even now (before Mamdani) is intolerable to me.

All great cities have their days in the sun–Rome, Athens and so forth–and the time for NY to go is gone. It will be hastened by many successful Jews leaving (largely to Miami or Tel Aviv) and New York will have to stew in its juices. The city will go into a rapid, and VERY DESERVED, decline. A lesson (hopefully) will be learned. Some of this is sad. I love the Metropolitan Museum and the Opera as much as most people (the theater is already a wasteland) but nothing is perfect. One can always visit.

But NYC was largely (not exclusively of course) built by Jews in almost every area of life. Jesse Jackson called it “hymie town” for a reason, obnoxious as that term was. We can, and have, built great things in other places and other times. . Socialism, meanwhile, as anyone with an IQ in the proverbial triple digits knows, has never worked and never will, The wretched Jewish pols of NY like Schumer can go stuff it in their slavish hypocrisy as they take a knee for Mamdani. They have been less than pond scum for years. Florida has better government anyway by far. Move there. Or head to Jerusalem, or anywhere in Eretz Israel. In January, every Jew reading this will thank me as New York turns into more of a hellhole than it already is. You will be doing something more revolutionary than marching against stupid progressives who won’t listen to you.. (When have they ever?). And if New York comes back to its senses because it goes broke, you can always return. But don’t hold your breath.

I can be wrong—it won’t be the first time; far from it—but I think I am right about the cataclysmic change to New York that will occur if Mamdani is elected and about the exodus of many Jews and gentiles from the city thereafter. I admit my evidence for this is extremely anecdotal. You only know who you know. But virtually everyone in the city I have talked with is either planning to leave, debating leaving or wishing they could leave but regretting that they can’t for personal reasons (family, work, etc.).

I was recently in Miami and already that city is asserting itself as the new Wall Street, center of our financial life. Culture will undoubtedly follow. It may never have the cultural greatness New York had and is losing, but the same could be said of Paris that is nowhere near the artistic center that it once was. We’re not in an era of great culture, sad to say.

To be clear, if I were still a New Yorker, which I haven’t been for decades, I would join to the extent that I could the fight against Mamdani’s election, even if it meant backing one of their endlessly corrupt officials. But at the same time, I would be thinking even harder about leaving. After all, I already did. As is written in the “I Ching”…. “Change/Opportunity.” Hard as it is to conceive, the people who built New York could build something great or even greater elsewhere.

First published in American Refugees

By Conrad Black

First published in the National Post

By Victor Davis Hanson

Recently, Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Trump Department of Justice have said they are running an investigation into James Comey’s and John Brennan’s careers as the respective FBI director and the CIA head during the Obama administration and, in the case of Comey, the first year of the Trump administration.

They are very angry about this, but let’s just review why there might be some culpability.

Take John Brennan. He was a big proponent of waterboarding and enhanced interrogation under President George W. Bush’s administration and the things that went on in Guantanamo. I’m not gonna comment on whether they were right or wrong. But he flipped to condition himself to go into the Obama administration, and then he attacked the very president that he had served, George Bush.

Then he began sounding off about Islam—“Religion of Peace”; “Jihadism is not a violent act”—to condition himself further to be appointed by President Barack Obama, which he was, eventually, a CIA director. But then he started lying. I mean, he always probably lied, but I mean, flagrantly so.

He said before Congress and the media there wasn’t one civilian killed by Obama’s targeted assassination program via Predators on the Afghan or Pakistan border. Actually, there were 50 or 75 innocent people we killed. He was caught in that lie.

Three years later, he went before the Congress and there was information that he had been tapping, his CIA, the staffers for the Senate to get into their computers. He not only lied about it, he did so emphatically—“Oh, we would never do that. That’s horrible.” Then he was forced to say, “Yes, I lied.” In both cases, there were no perjury charges, nothing.

The pièce de résistance for John Brennan was in October 2020, on the eve of the second and critical presidential debate, Joe Biden was in trouble. People were furious about this laptop. There was pornography on it. There was drug use. There were references to Joe Biden as “Mr. Big Guy.” Ten percent that he’d been giving money. He was crooked. People wanted to hear, he had no excuse.

So, what happened? Antony Blinken, his future secretary of state, campaign aid, called Michael Morell, interim CIA director at one point, said, “Round them up.”

So, 51 “intelligence authorities” swore the laptop had all the hallmarks of Russian information. Notice the words: All the hallmarks, escape clause, of Russian information. Not disinformation, but that’s what they meant.

So, what happened in the debate? Donald Trump went right after Biden and said, “That laptop is real. It shows that you’re a crook. It shows your son is a miscreant.”

And Joe Biden’s, “How dare you? Fifty-one Intelligence authorities swear that it’s a product of Russian espionage. Only you and Rudy Giuliani believe that.” And it was effective.

Later a poll showed, the TechnoMetrica poll showed that if people had known that it had been authenticated—and by the way, that laptop was sitting in the hands of the FBI and adjudicated to be authentic and not released to the public at a time when Christopher Wray’s FBI was partnering with Twitter and Facebook to suppress any news story that was accurately reporting that the laptop was authentic.

John Brennan finally accused Donald Trump of being a Russian traitor. He said that after Donald Trump spoke in Helsinki about Russian-American relationships, he said that he is treasonous.

When he said that, I think we all thought: Well, wait a minute. Donald Trump killed the Wagner Group in Syria. He upped the sanctions on the oligarchs. He approved offensive weapons to Ukraine that Obama had canceled. Russia didn’t go into Ukraine under the Trump administration. It had invaded Ossetia under Bush. It went under Ukraine under both Biden and Obama, but not under Trump. He told the Germans, “Don’t cut a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.” He got out of an asymmetrical missile deal. He was the hardest president that we’ve had against Russia.

So, what was John Brennan doing? Here’s what he was doing—and two or three of the most significant scandals of the last 50 years, he was at the center.

You could make the argument that the Russian collusion hoax almost swung the election to Hillary Clinton. You could argue that.

You could argue that the Mueller investigation, based on that stupid dossier, cost Donald Trump 22 months of his first two years in office. Forty million dollars to find nothing.

You could make the argument that if the FBI had just released its investigation of the laptop, told the people it was authentic, John Brennan would not, and his cohorts, been able to lie to the American people that it was cooked up in Russia and that Donald Trump was complicit in that.

That disclosure, that failure to disclose the true nature of that laptop, thanks to John Brennan and 51 intelligence authorities, and the debate by Joe Biden, and the false charges, may have affected the election. As I said, one polling company found that it did.

And finally, we wouldn’t be in this big trouble about the Ukraine war and Russia had John Brennan and people like him not floated the spurious narrative that Donald Trump was working hand in glove with Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin. Russia, Russia, Russia. That colored and poisoned the whole relationship we had with Russia. It affected the Russian-Ukrainian war. And it was all a lie.

And so, here we are with John Brennan mad that he lost his security clearance for being a well-paid MSNBC analyst. He should be better worried, not that he lost his security clearance, that he might be indicted and go to jail. He’s got a lot of culpability, both in not telling the truth and spinning lies and being at the heart of a number of scandals that affected the history of the United States.

First published in the Daily Signal

By Gary Fouse

There hasn’t been much positive news coming out of the University of California and its satellite campuses lately, but this is a step in the right direction. Outgoing President Michael Drake has announced that UC entities and student governments can forget about all those BDS (Boycott-Divest-Sanctions) proclamations and calls to boycott Israel and businesses doing business with the Jewish state. In the past, I have been critical of Drake, especially during the years he was the chancellor at UC Irvine, but I give him credit for this move.

I also give credit to President Trump for setting the tone in his administration that anti-Semitism must be countered, particularly in our universities, which are collectively the focal point for this resurgence in anti-Semitism in the US. For too long, university administrators have allowed this situation to get out of hand, giving slap-on-the-wrist suspensions to students who disrupted Jewish events, bullied Jewish students, and more recently, occupied university spaces and disrupted the functions of the campus.  For too many years, university administrators have been afraid to crack down on student groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and various chapters of the Muslim Student Association (MSA).

But now, with Trump in the White House and Republicans controlling Congress, the Department of Education and the House Committee on Education and the Workplace are cracking down on these corrupt institutions of “higher learning”. While the above House committee has held hearings and criticized the inaction of university presidents, the Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights is launching a series of investigations into complaints of anti-Semitism against some of our “most prestigious universities”. And it’s not just the reputations of these universities that are at stake; it is also billions in federal dollars that are now on the table, not to mention accreditation.

In addition, the UC system is under investigation by DOJ for allegations of discriminatory hiring practices.

Can there be any doubt that these universities are being moved to action by the seriousness being displayed by Trump, the House Republicans, and DOE? In my opinion, the threat of withholding billions of dollars in federal grants and the national embarrassment brought upon academia by the House hearings have sent a clear message to university leaders that there will be consequences for continuing to ignore the pleas of Jewish students and to allow disruption on their campuses.

These academic institutions are raking in billions of dollars in donations (both foreign and domestic), grants, and exorbitant tuitions. It has had, in my view, a corrupting influence on academia. They and their brainwashed students can cry all they want about freedom of expression and federal crackdowns, but they are not entitled to one penny of federal money. They are failing in their core mission-to educate. What they are succeeding in is indoctrination.

I just hope that Trump keeps his foot on the pedal and doesn’t restore what has been suspended. Of course, these gains will all turn to sand if the Democrats get back into power because they overwhelmingly support the nonsense that has taken over our campuses. While it is true that DOE/OCR initiated some investigations into anti-Semitism on university campuses under Biden, the former president and his fellow Democrats in Congress never showed much interest in the complaints of anti-Semitism coming from Jewish students.

While I applaud the action by UC President Drake, much more needs to be done. Every university in the country should make SJP suspensions permanent, as well as MSA chapters that violate campus rules of decorum. To cite an interesting case: In 2010, the Muslim Student Union (MSU) at UC Irvine disrupted the speech of then-Israeli ambassador to the US, Michael Oren. (I was present.) Eleven students who stood and disrupted the speech were removed by campus police, and the Orange County District Attorney filed misdemeanor charges against them and won convictions. The university itself was against the idea of prosecuting the students. What they did do was suspend MSU for a year. It was during this period of time that SJP formed a chapter at UC Irvine, no doubt to fill the void. Eventually, the vice chancellor cut the suspension to one quarter as he walked out the door into retirement. (In my view, SJP now acts as the lightning rod for the various MSU/MSA chapters around the country. They have many of the same members.) It goes without saying that violent disruptions and acts of anti-Semitism should result in arrests and expulsions.

It all comes down to this: Trump, his administration, and the Republicans in Congress must keep up the pressure. Left to their own devices, our universities will never change. Start taking their money away, and they will pay attention.

By Victor Davis Hanson

Across the political Left, from orthodox Democrats to Antifa in the streets, the opposition to President Donald Trump has lost its collective mind.

The Democrat House minority leader and now self-styled tough guy, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, poses with a baseball bat to show how dangerous he is in opposing President Donald Trump’s budget bill.

Jeffries harangued Congress for eight hours; New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker went on for 25—both to no effect

.Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hit the rally trail in private jets to rail about oligarchs, omitting that the ultrarich are not only mostly leftists but also the funders of the Democratic Party.

Some representatives now confess that they’re being pressured by their constituents to take a bullet for the cause.

The racialist Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett—sometimes playing the prep-school prima donna, sometimes modulating her accent to pass as the authentic inner-city activist—gains headlines for monotonously ranting about old white men

On left-wing social media, the assassin Luigi Mangione remains a heartthrob for murdering a health care executive, replacing the Tsarnaev brothers as the hot new left-wing killer.

He, too, might soon end up with a cover photo on Rolling Stone.

The left-wing internet mob grotesquely claims that children lost to the recent flash flood in Texas deserved their fate.

They even advance three sick reasons for their ghoulishness. Texas Christians supported the MAGA agenda and thus met a just fate. Or, as red-state Texans, they were deservedly collateral damage to the Department of Government Efficiency’s bureaucratic reductions. Or, as climate denialists would say, the flash flood took righteous revenge on children for their supposed ignorance.

Add it all up, and there is a sizable leftist “base” that is completely amoral.

Then there are the college campuses, where left-wing antisemitism, pro-Hamas terrorism, and DEI-fueled racism risk costing elite universities their multibillion-dollar subsidies that fund the indoctrination of young leftists

In panic, cash-strapped universities can no longer hide that they were gouging the federal government with outrageous surcharges on grants. They were systematically defying the Supreme Court by their race-based admissions and hiring. They institutionalized segregationist dorms, segregated graduations, and antisemitism.

Finally, there is the so-called left-wing Resistance and the street mobs’ descent into violence and terrorism.

Sometimes, thugs ambush U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

Sometimes, they firebomb Tesla dealerships.

Sometimes, they attack federal buildings, shut down freeways, and pelt patrol cars with concrete.

They continue with impunity because they know the Democratic Party cannot and will not censure them.

As in the monthslong rioting of 2020, leftist politicos assume their street bandits will cause so much mayhem, violence, and chaos that Trump will either be forced to call out the troops (and thus “prove” he’s Hitler) or be too scared to—only to be blamed for the unrest, which could cost him the midterms.

But who or what drives the insane rages of these various armies of the left?

One is an obviously bleeding Democratic Party. Despite gushing about its new DEI, illegal alien, trans, and Middle Eastern constituents, it has no political power. Its issues are mostly 30-70 losers.

It has little power in the House or Senate beyond fake filibusters, performative outrage, or profanity-laced rants.

It lost the White House. The Supreme Court eventually nullified the illegality of left-wing district judges.

It does not trust the people, so plebiscites and ballot measures are mostly out.

Two, unlike his first term, Trump is addressing the causes, not just the symptoms, of the progressive project, whether on the border, crime, cultural issues, or foreign policy.

This time around, there are no John Boltons, no Rex Tillersons, no Alexander Vindmans, and no Anonymouses from the inside to thwart the Trump agenda.

This time around, there are no John Boltons, no Rex Tillersons, no Alexander Vindmans, and no Anonymouses from the inside to thwart the Trump agenda.

The administration is loyalist and committed to addressing the root causes of the left-wing influence, not just its manifestations.

So, Trump has focused on leftist sacred cows like NPR, PBS, the elite campuses, the United States Agency for International Development, and the administrative state—all the inculcators and laboratories of leftist ideology.

Finally, the Left is outraged that so far, the Trump counterrevolution is working.

The economy is solid. The border is closed. Military recruitment has radically recovered.

The budget bill has passed. The Iranian nuclear threat has lessened. NATO is strengthening. The Middle East has a chance for calm.

Tariffs did not cause inflation. Deportations created more, not fewer, American jobs. Biological men will likely no longer be winning women’s athletic contests.

Add it all up, and the impotent Left in all its orthodox and street manifestations has become unhinged.

And why not when it rightly fears that not just its power, but the very sources of its power, are in mortal danger

First published in the Daily Signal

By Phyllis Chesler

On July 7th, nearly four years after America left Afghanistan and the Taliban took it over, the United Nations has “called on” the Taliban to “end their repressive policies” towards women and to “ensure inclusive governance. ”

The UN specifically “raised (an) alarm” over the “systematic oppression of women and girls” in Afghanistan.

Will the UN issue warrants for the arrest of Taliban leaders whom, they say, are “violating international law”? Will they actually execute arrests?

Of course not. They are toothless. They fear and respect all sovereign communist and Islamist states–but not democratic Israel.

But here’s my question.

Would the UN dare to “raise awareness” about Taliban-like practices in the West?

For example, did the UN take a strong stand on the Pakistani grooming gangs (pedophile prostitution rings) in the UK? Did they condemn the British government and police force for failing to protect British female children? And has the UN issued a warrant for the Muslim matchmaking website in the UK known as NikkahGram, which was founded in 2023?

This marriage-brokering site describes itself as a “service for Muslim men” who want a “shy, untouched” bride (a virgin), and “who are looking for more than one wife.” (Non-virgins can give a husband cancer–or so they claim.)

Polygamy is illegal in the West and so the website advises its clients not to register such marriages in the West but to have them performed privately, religiously.

Wife beating is also technically illegal, but this website advises men about when, why, and how to beat their wives.

Of course, NikkahGram’s “coach,” Dr. Asif Munaf, was “suspended from the medical register for making anti-Semitic remarks among the staff.” Right after 10/7, he also called Zionism a “satanic cult.”

My God! Is Dr. Munaf going to run for mayor–in London or in New York City? No. We already have Zohran Mamdani, who is doing just that and whose views on Israel and the Jews are very similar to Dr. Munaf’s.

NikkahGram is very careful to point out that they do not promote anything illegal, but they do “discuss and endorse faith-based preferences that are protected under religious freedom laws.” They also promote marrying women who are from “overseas,” and who are “less prone to feminism, more traditional…If you’re tired of Western sisters and who want a wife (or second/third/fourth wife) who respects your role as a man…you should consider this.”

And there you have it. Promote Muslim Islamist practices legally, claiming the right to do so under Western freedom-of-religion laws and increase the Muslim population by bringing wives from abroad, and having as many babies as you can by impregnating not only one, but up to four women. Count on the welfare state to fully support this endeavor.

This is what Islamic demographic and misogynist Jihad look like. I and a growing number of others have been writing about this for more than a quarter century–that this is what’s been happening all over Europe. It is coming to America very soon. Some say it is already here, although it is much smaller.

And yes, Muslim/Islamist stabbing, car ramming, beheading, and blowing infidels and Muslim dissidents up has long stalked the West, and that includes America.

What do you think the UN is going to do about it? What do you think Mamdani as mayor will do about it?

First published in Phyllis’ Newsletter

From GB News

Police officers incorrectly produced a custody sheet for an arrest that never happened, according to the father of a grooming gangs’ victim.

He believes the records may have been falsified in order to cover up two separate arrests when he was trying to rescue his daughter from a grooming gang den in Rotherham. South Yorkshire Police has confirmed it has launched an investigation into the case.

Jack, not his real name, is the father of Elizabeth, also a pseudonym, who was abused by gangs of rapists in a flat in Rotherham for 10 weeks in 2005.

Like many Rotherham parents, Jack knew his daughter was being exploited and desperately sought police support. He told GB News that he made hundreds of reports to South Yorkshire Police about her being missing.

But instead of the force sufficiently investigating the issue, Jack claimed that they arrested him twice as he tried to rescue his daughter from the den.

On the first occasion, he said he went to the flat, was arrested and then swiftly de-arrested at his nearby address and told not to go back. However, he ignored this guidance and returned to the building where Elizabeth was being held. He claimed that he started kicking the door and shouting. He said that he was arrested again, only this time he was taken to Rotherham police station.

Instead of being booked in at the custody desk, Jack said he was taken to a nearby room, held for a brief period, and then released again. He did not return for a third time having been told that Elizabeth’s life would be at risk, along with the lives of other girls.

When the grooming gangs scandal in the town was finally exposed nearly a decade later, Elizabeth submitted complaints to the Independent Office for Police Conduct about the ordeal.

When the grooming gangs scandal in the town was finally exposed nearly a decade later, Elizabeth submitted complaints to the Independent Office for Police Conduct about the ordeal. . .As part of the legal proceedings, lawyers acting for South Yorkshire Police released a set of custody sheets related to Jack.

One of the sheets says that Jack was arrested for being drunk and disorderly around the time that he claims he was arrested twice outside the abuse den.

Jack insists that this account is false. He told GB News that he had been arrested for underage drinking as a teenager in the 1970s but had not broken laws related to drinking since.

There are other curious elements to the custody sheet. The police record, accessed in June 2021, has written that Jack’s address and age are inconsistent with what was accurate for that period.

The listed address is a property that Jack did not live at until 2010.

GB News has had sight of council tax records supplied by the local authority which demonstrate that Jack lived at a different property around the period of the alleged arrests.

Jack told GB News that he believes this was a mistake made by the police as they retrospectively developed the custody sheet for what he described as a false arrest record.

When asked why SYP officers might have done this, Jack said: “Because they didn’t want it to go public. As we all know about Rotherham, we were told we was the only family going through this. We reported it over 200 times over months. We were told: ‘it’s you and your wife’s bad parenting because it’s only happening to you’.”

Jack added: “If these police officers are still in the police force now [happy there’s no way these officers can be identified? two are named on custody sheet but presumably that has not been made public?] , obviously they’ve moved up to higher positions and they’re lying and making things up to cover what they’ve done, and it’s wrong. . . As far as I’m concerned, they’re in the same bed as the perpetrators, because that’s what they are. They’re still aiding and abetting these people.”

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage (told) GB News: “It’s almost like it’s getting worse. However bad we thought the grooming gang scandal was, it just got worse. This new evidence shows that Rotherham must be part of the national inquiry.”

Jayne Senior, the Rotherham whistleblower who helped to expose the scandal, told the People’s Channel: “This is another example of how South Yorkshire Police failed in their duty to protect our children and listen to parents when they cried out for help. I would expect an immediate investigation into how this happened and who appears to have falsified that document to be held to account. . . We need an investigation to be as quick as possible to give this father answers.”

A former youth worker close to the family, who has requested anonymity, said: “I truly feel for this family, a father desperate to keep his daughter safe and failed by the very organisation that is here to protect us all. His family were torn apart, not only by her abusers but also by South Yorkshire Police. . . ”

By Phyllis Chesler

Many moons ago, I sent my response to Dr. Inna Rozentsvit at Clio’s Psyche–a most fascinating journal of psychoanalysis. It has just now been published. I obtained permission to share my thoughts with you here.

Abstract: This is my response to Dr. Inna Rozentsvit’s compelling article about the complex reasons for the marginalization and disappearance of the work of women psychoanalytic theorists. I point out that men have generally been the reason behind the disappearance of women’s intellectual contributions; however, it is now also being carried out by women, especially faux-feminists.

Keywords: childhood sexuality, faux-feminism, feminism, Inna Rozentsvit, patriarchal biases, penis envy, psychohistory, Sigmund Freud, Women and Madness, women’s issues

I welcome Inna Rozentsvit’s excellent article on the complex reasons for the marginalization and disappearance of women psychoanalysts, theorists, and therapists from the “canonical history of psychoanalysis.” She explains this as partly due to the patriarchal biases of their male colleagues, which were typical for their time—but also due to a different and less valued theoretical course charted by many women psychoanalytic theorists—that, in turn, might have been caused by neurobiological differences in the male and female brain.

This is an utterly fascinating thesis and is far more measured than the original feminist-era critiques (including my own) of Freud’s refusal to admit the reality of incest—which might also have been due to his precarious position as the allegedly filthy-minded “Jewish” scientist, who might expose proper Austrians—fathers!—of such a crime. Freud was already in trouble over his theories about childhood sexuality in general. Never mind his views about penis envy as opposed to power envy, something that Karen Horney criticized early on and with which second-wave feminists agreed.

In the beginning, few such critics of psychoanalysis knew or acknowledged the major roles played by Bertha Pappenheim (Anna O), who invented the “talking cure,” and Russian-born psychoanalyst Sabina Spielrein, with whom Jung had the most outrageous affair when she was his patient (see Chesler, 2017, for more information)—and who first suggested the role of the death instinct, which both Freud and Jung appropriated in different ways. Spielrein was the first child psychoanalyst in the world (yes, even before Anna Freud). Spielrein’s biography by Angela Sells, Sabina Spielrein: The Woman and the Myth (2017), provides more context about this important psychoanalytic figure.

Generally, men beyond the psychoanalytic world have ignored the work of women in science and the humanities or taken credit for women’s work. The late great Australian scholar Dale Spender documented the systematic disappearance of feminist knowledge, century after century, mainly by men, in her book Women of Ideas and What Men Have Done to Them: From Aphra Ben to Adrienne Rich (1982).

However, while Rozentsvit is right about male psychoanalysts disappearing the work of their female colleagues and mentors, I must point out that, from 1980–2024, contemporary feminist theorists and therapists, primarily women, have participated in an equally Electra-like form of matricide in their rather savage disappearance of women’s contributions to psychology and psychoanalytic theory. In fact, faux-feminist therapists and academics have moved rather radically from a psychoanalytic vision of the individual or the individual patient (or paying customer) to an obsession that their role as therapists is to indoctrinate all who seek to understand themselves or to ease their suffering into a politically correct politics. This privileges race and class over sex or gender. It focuses on the transgender issues; the persecution of African Americans; the evil nature of having been born White or male, being heterosexual, not “queer;” and, of course, on the cause of all human suffering: the irredeemably sinful West and the presumably even more Satanic, Jews and their tiny Jewish state, Israel. Worse: Such theorists view classical psychoanalysis as a Jewish perversion and wish to overthrow it entirely.

Before I give some examples of this, please understand that psychoanalysis is both a personal as well as an intellectual matter to me. As a child, when I suffered from nightmares, my mother found a child psychoanalyst for me in Brooklyn, Melitta Shmideberg—Melanie Klein’s daughter. I must admit that she frightened me as she re-enacted my dreams. I may even have fled her office from time to time. I did not yet know that she had publicly broken up with her mother (whose theories I’ve always valued).

As a child, I immersed myself in Greek myths and plays. By the time I was about 15 years old, I had begun reading Freud and Horney entirely on my own. I never discussed this with anyone; their work was not part of my high school or college curriculum.

Some years after I completed graduate school, I trained at a psychoanalytic institute in New York City and, after that, entered an analysis with Dr. Susan Deri, who had trained in Hungary and escaped the Nazi scourge. At that time, I was a firebrand feminist in the midst of writing Women and Madness (1972), and thus, I criticized Freud rather hotly and prematurely. Although I thought Dr. Susan was probably too much of a Freudian, I loved her. (Transference? Sure.) Once, Dr. Melitta joined her for dinner and remembered me as one of her child patients: “Ach, yes, she had headaches and nightmares.” I left Dr. Susan only because a close friend of mine began dating her son, Peter, and kept telling me all about their social interactions. It was more than I could handle, but I still remember my Hungarian-born analyst with great warmth and fondness.

Finally, in 1982, after lecturing in Saltzburg, I visited what is now the Freud Museum at Berggasse 19. The President allowed me to be alone in Freud’s waiting room (or in his consulting room, I am no longer sure). Once there, I listened to Freud tell me his problems. Unsurprisingly, he attributed many of his sorrows to his life as a Jew in antisemitic, hypocritical, and “Victorian” Austria. The President, whose name I forget, asked me to convene a conference on Freud and Women. I agreed to do so, but a month later, as a passenger, I suffered a near-fatal car accident and was laid up for many years. I could not convene this conference, something that I very much regret.

I once had dinner with Karen Horney’s daughters, who arranged for psychoanalyst Anna Aragno to review my book, Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman (2002), in the American Journal of Psychoanalysis. I mentioned to them that I took their mother’s work very seriously and had published a chapter in my book About Men (1978) about male uterus envy.

So, although I am not a practicing psychoanalyst and have never worked full-time as a psychoanalytically oriented therapist, the ideas, history, controversies, and historical figures in the psychoanalytic world are long familiar to me and cherished. Therefore, in my view, the savaging of this extraordinary way of thinking is unwarranted and unacceptable.

Now, here’s one of the many examples of how contemporary academic feminists, mostly women, have disappeared leading women theorists and practitioners in the world of psychology and psychoanalysis. In 2022, the Barnard Center for Research on Women held a feminist conference about “Living in Madness: Decolonization, Creation, Healing.” I was more than a little interested—I attended their opening panel via Zoom. Most of the opening panelists spoke in a pseudo-scientific language I could barely comprehend. One speaker mentioned only one female theorist in mental health, Sarah Ahmed, a British Australian Pakistani “queer lesbian” of color.

They all seemed to romanticize madness as yet another way of destroying boundaries, which, in their collective view, was revolutionary or liberating. In my experience, schizophrenia, manic-depression, anxiety, panic attacks, post-traumatic stress disorders, and suicidal ideation are all one-way tickets to Hell—not Paradise. None of the panelists mentioned even one of the female foremothers included by Rozentsvit in her article. These panelists were no longer concerned with psychoanalysis as a process of self-education, a way of understanding the human psyche, or of reducing suffering but as a way of indoctrinating people into a politically correct way of thinking.

One panelist, Dr. Camille Robcis, focused on France. However, she “referred to Lacan, Foucault, Fanon, and Tosquelles—all men—but not to any of their major French female counterparts, e.g., Marie Balmary, Ilse (Rothschild) Barande, Simone de Beauvoir, Princess Marie Bonaparte, Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel, Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva, etc.,” and adds that “Although Dr. Robcis mentioned Nazi camps and Nazi fascism again and again, the word ‘Jews’ never crossed her lips” (Chesler, 2022, para 10).

The panelists never mentioned the 20th century pioneers of feminist psychology and feminist psychoanalysis. I am thinking of Drs. Sandra Bem, Paula Joan Caplan, Helene Deutsch, Dorothy Dinnerstein, Anna Freud, Frieda Fromm-Reichman, Carol Gilligan, Karen Horney, Judith Lewis Herman, Ellyn Kaschak, Melanie Klein, Margaret Mahler, Alice Miller, Jean Baker Miller, Juliet Mitchell, Sabina Spielrein, Clara Thompson. My work was never mentioned either.

Dr. Lara Sheehi, formerly of Georgetown University in DC and currently based in Qatar, was another panelist. (Sheehi was the President of the Society of Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytic Psychology, a Division 39 of the American Psychological Association.) Former President Sheehi kept tossing her hair and, as I’ve written before, she talked about “‘stolen land,’ ‘solidarity with political prisoners everywhere, especially in Palestine;’ about ‘de-colonial feminist solidarity’ which opposes ‘settler colonial logic,’ ‘brutal occupation,’ and ‘settler soldiers’” (Chesler, 2022, para 19). Sheehi aimed to defame Israel, employing terms like “‘de-colonial and queer methodology’” against “‘heteronormative patriarchy,’” “‘the chokeholds of Zionist practices,’” and called to “‘practice liberation’” (Chesler, 2022, paras 18-19). Perhaps she thinks this is a form of political psychotherapy—or a way to rise swiftly in the contemporary academic world.

The whole discourse was politically conformist, incomprehensible, and never used the word “woman.”

First published in Phyllis’ Newsletter

By Victor Davis Hanson

We’ve talked before about the front-runner in the New York mayoral race, Zohran Mamdani. And we’ve mentioned before that he talked about “seizing the means of production,” which comes right out of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ “Das Kapital,” “The Communist Manifesto.”

We talked about his claims that he never advocated defunding the police, even though there’s an extensive social media trail where he advocates just that.

He talked about going into “richer” and “whiter” areas and taxing them, specifically, at a higher rate. Kind of ironic, as we mentioned that the highest income group in the United States by ethnic background are people from India, Indian Americans. Mamdani’s parents, for example. He didn’t say, in other words, richer and Indian American, he just used the word “white” because he is trying to cater himself to the African American vote.

All that being said, because he is such an extremist figure and because he has been pampered and grown up very rich, he was never really required to go out and get a job and go through audits. He’s been a rapper. He’s been an activist. He’s tried to run for office. He has an extensive left-wing record. And now that he’s in the public realm, everything is starting to come out.

Just to give you a couple of examples: His father was in a discussion—you know, a conference discussion—and said that Adolf Hitler’s idea for the final solution and many of his policies toward the Jews came from Abraham Lincoln, the way Lincoln supposedly treated Indians on reservations. That’s crazy.

Anwar al-Awlaki, I don’t know if you remember him, al-Awlaki. He was an American citizen that went to Yemen. And he advocated killing Americans. And he was a terrorist. Barack Obama, when he was president, ordered a predator hit team on him and killed al-Awlaki in a targeted assassination—who was, by the way, an ISIS supporter, but he was also a U.S. citizen. So, we assassinated him without habeas corpus. Be that as it may, that was Obama’s decision.

But now we learned, in 2015, years after that Obama hit on this ISIS figure—was one of the captains of ISIS and living in Yemen—Mamdani was defending him and saying, basically, he turned radical because the FBI surveilled him. That’s like saying that FBI Director Kash Patel turned radical because the FBI surveilled him. People don’t become terrorist kingpins because the American FBI thinks you’re a person of interest.

He has some other disturbing things as well. He posted a video on his social media of Indian Americans dressed as if they were Hasidic Jews. And they were making fun of the Hanukkah celebration. And they had a menorah there. And they were chanting, as if they were rap music. It was very derogatory toward Jews. Yet, why would he put that on his social media account?

That’s not the end of it. He’s very sensitive about the African American and Latino vote—which I don’t think he’s going to win. But now we learn that when he applied to college, to Bowdoin—and I think, further, to graduate school, in which he was not admitted—he claimed that he was an African American.

And you know, as someone who was in academia for three decades, I used to have students that were from North Africa, Egypt, or Morocco, or Algeria, but were not African American. That is, they were not blacks. And they tried that trick. And they were not successful. Neither was Mamdani.

But imagine, he’s giving lectures—moral lectures, sanctimonious lectures, self-righteous lectures—about how unequal the United States is. And then, yet, he tries to mimic or pass on an Elizabeth Warren or a Ward Churchill-like fraud that he’s African American, that he is a black African.

Just because his parents, who were Indian and immigrants to Uganda and were one of the 1% elite in that country, and they were thrown out as refugees, he’s now claiming that he should have had special—I shouldn’t say he’s now claiming—he claimed that he should have had special preference in admissions because he was black.

You add all of this up and I guarantee you more will come out every day because he’s a pampered, privileged, angry, young socialist/communist. He’s had no experience. He’s out of depth. And he has a long social media record.

And the only question that I have for you, the audience, and me, because I’m genuinely puzzled about it, the more that we hear that he’s a lunatic and unhinged and anti-American and socialist, does that help him or does that hurt him, given the demographics of New York?

First published in the Daily Signal