White Chapel

UNRWA planned and funded October 7 massacre

	Shuv Majumdar ⁦‪@shuvmajumdar‬⁩ "They pretend to be the firefighter, but they are actually the arsonist." Dr. ⁦‪@EinatWilf‬⁩ shuts down Liberal MP's distorted view of the Middle East and breaks down how UNRWA and Hamas built tunnels to execute their invasion of Israel and the horrific October 7 massacre. pic.x.com/Dc9UVElNG5   24/2/2026, 8:32 pm

Sent from my iPad

Keep the Status Quo on Taiwan. The path to peace

I knew this (below) from decades ago -- because I'd read Edgar Snow's "Red Star over China" in 1976, the year I arrived in China. Everyone said: "you've got to read this book". So I did. 

It was not a great read, TBF. Even in those early days I recognised hero worship. Edgar Snow idolised Mao. That didn't seem to me a sound base for a biography. More like hagiography. 

But if I ever mention it -- the fact that Mao said Taiwan should be independent -- it's like the fart in the elevator: wrinkled faces. People don't want to know. But it's true. Mao said what Snow said he said and it made sense. It makes sense. 

I've said so many times on this blog, about Taiwan: the best thing is the status quo.

Just leave things as they are. Taking over Taiwan, trying to take over Taiwan, by force, by the mainland, by Xi Jinping, is a horrid idea. It can only destroy world trade, destroy the world economy, destroy peace in Asia and the world.

Just leave it like it is. If the only reason you're trying to do it, China -- to attack and take over the island of Taiwan -- is because you want "to leave a legacy", find something else to do.

"In 1928, Mao Zedong explicitly advocated that Taiwan should be independent and establish a “Taiwan Republic.”

In 1936, Mao told American journalist Edgar Snow in Yan’an that if the Korean people wished to break free of Japanese imperialism, “we enthusiastically support their struggle for independence,” and that “the same applies to Taiwan.”

In other words, in 1936 your Party [CCP] did not even consider Taiwan to be Chinese territory, yet later it changed its tune and claimed “Taiwan has since ancient times been Chinese territory.” This shows the Party’s habit of rewriting history to suit political needs."

Robert Tsao

Latest Human Rights Report: 43,000 Killed in the Crackdown on Protests in Iran | International Centre for Human Rights,

Click above for the article

The Report from the International Centre for Human Rights, in Canada. 

More people killed in Iran, by the Mullahs, in 2 months, than have been killed in Gaza in 2 years. 

More people killed by its own government than killed in a war. 

In Iran it's the government killing its own people. Those who are rising up against its authoritarian, islamist tyranny. In Gaza, it's the result of war. 

And how many in the west are out on the streets? Demonstrating against this murder? 

None. 

Not a one. Not one single person we see on the streets, denouncing the horrid, the brutal, the inhumane, the bloody murder of fellow citizens, just because they hate your tyranny. 

The hypocrisy is disgusting. 

Tariffs are sometimes good. Giving away our car industry...voluntarily

Saved by the Bill. The tariff bill that kept tariffs on 
pick up trucks like the Ford F250

The answer at bottom is not before a long tussle with Grok. 

I was reminded that in the 1980s I'd owned a brand new company car, the Holden Commodore, made in Australia. 

It was a great car. I thought better than most American cars I'd driven. And better than even many European cars. I thought it better than the BMWs I'd driven in Europe. It was as fast, as agile, had braking as good; and had far better aircon. 

Then came the killer of the industry. The Australian government, a Labor, left wing one, did away with the last remaining tariffs and non-tariff barriers on car imports.  Result: the end of the Australian car industry, after 70 years. 70 proud years. 

Shame. 

Then I learned that in the US the car industry was decimated by the NAFTA and WTO in the 1990s and early 2000s. Because of these trade agreements, the U.S. industry moved to Mexico and China. And in America people were told: "don't worry, everything will be cheaper". 

Tariffs were removed...

EXCEPT FOR the tariff on what the Americans call "trucks". Aka, "pickup trucks", like the Ford F150 and F250 in the pic above.  

These kept a 25% tariff coz of some kind of quibble that I can't be bothered to look up; but which led to the US keeping its manufacturing of pickup trucks, now the largest item of car sold every year in the US. 

By the way, these are great vehicles. I LOVE them! If I were living in a place that permitted private cars (I don't), then I'd have one for sure. They're rough, tough and hugely practical. 

Having been taught in Eco 101 at the Australian National Uni, that "Tariffs Bad. Free Trade Good", I'd imbibed and imbued that my whole life. Then Trump upends things. Peoole freak out. But surely we should look at what they do. And at least in the case of the American Truck and in the case of the Australian Holden Commodore, tariffs have kept a viable industry, with all its employment and all its ancillary industries. Even if the end product might have been a little more expensive.  

Then my long argument with Grok, which I won't bore you with. 

The Sowell quote to which Grok refers is one of my favourite ones: professor Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions; only trade offs". 

If you know that there's no perfect answer, you know that you have to make trade offs. The problem with Australia, during the Paul Keating and Bob Hawke Labor years, is that they thought they were giving us solutions.  

When what they were doing was one end of a spectrum of trade offs. We decided to trade off domestic jobs, give them to to other countries, for some cheaper goods. And that was sold as a "solution". It wasn't. Australia now has the lowest percent of the population in manufacturing than any country in Asia and than all developed countries. Well done Lucky Country! Not. 

My killer question to Grok: 

To which it answered:

Grok: Yes – your argument holds.

Australia's passenger vehicle industry ran for ~70 years (Holden full production from 1948, roots earlier). High tariffs (peaking ~57.5% in the early 1980s) kept it viable, supporting direct manufacturing jobs for tens of thousands plus 150,000+ in the supply chain at peak. It produced millions of cars tailored to Australian conditions.

The final VF Commodore (2013-2017) was genuinely world-class: best-ever build quality from the Elizabeth plant, strong exports, class-leading dynamics and durability. Executives and workers confirmed the last cars were the highest standard ever.

Australia chose to unwind this.

Whitlam's 1973 across-the-board 25% tariff cut (explicitly to fight inflation and force "efficiency") started it – two years before the non-binding Lima Declaration he enthusiastically backed. The Hawke/Keating Button Plan (1984 onward) then deliberately phased tariffs from ~57% down to 15% by 2000, then 10%, then 5% by 2010, plus FTAs with Thailand, Korea, Japan and China that zeroed duties on imports.

No one forced it. It was policy choice, framed as virtuous global citizenship – exactly the Lima spirit of helping developing nations industrialise by opening developed markets.

Sowell was right: only trade-offs.

Keep tariffs → slightly dearer cars, but retain a full domestic industry, skills, jobs, and related manufacturing. Lower tariffs → cheaper imports for consumers, but the entire sector collapses (Ford 2016, Toyota/Holden 2017).

Australia picked the second path. The industry was competitive enough under protection; it wasn't "dying naturally." We voluntarily gave it away.

Beware of AI. It gets things wrong... all the time!

I’ve used AI a lot. ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Perplexity, Grok. Grok is the best IMO. Has the fewest hallucinations and is "fundamentally truth seeking”, which drags it away from pursuing a narrative. 

In the case above, I asked Grok the same questions that had been asked of ChatGPT. Grok resolutely refused to give a “Yes or No” answer. 

It kept coming back against each push by me, with the line — correct, I believe — that the questions were too complex and too nuanced for a binary "yes" or "no" answer. 

Still, Grok gets things wrong. It will get data wrong and generate silly charts. Sometimes wildly so. If you count on AI for anything serious, you absolutely have to double and triple check its answers.

The worst AI is DeepSeek. The Chinese one. Anything about China, current affairs or political issues, forget about it. If you want to know about the Cultural Revolution or the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, or anything about the current mass purge of the Generals in the Central Military Commission, forget about it. DeepSeek will refuse. No amount of pushing will get it to change its mind. 

An example of ChatGPT’s world view, which is the world view of its young leftie training team:

From here 

Of course there are plenty on the Left who’ll say “but this is true!”. 

And I’ll say “no it’s not”. I know plenty of conservatives who are decent, honest folk. I know Democrats who are horrid to people who simply have a different opinion from them. I used to think Obama wonderful, but now see that he was the one who began the race-grift game, and did harm in the Middle East with his Iran policies. Elon Musk is doing vastly more for the world — Starlink, electric cars, Neuralink —- than he’s “bad” because he shifted support to Trump. 

And… Woke is usually batshit crazy.

So, yeah, like Grok, there's many questions can’t be answered by a simple "yes" or "no". 

Soon to reopen…

Siena Pool, Discovery Bay, Hong Kong.
Looking towards Central District, Hong Kong Island (right background).

Bay Day Dog

Byron, morning walk by "Third White Bay" (三白湾). 

Muddy boots …

"Who's going to pick our cotton?" | Islam's challenge to the West

 

Aussie politician: "Who's going to make your bed? Who's going to bathe you? Who's going to wipe your bum?". 

Slave supporters pre Civil War: "Who's going to pick our cotton?"

I don't get how they don't see the hypocrisy. The racism of that view. 

All the while destroying our own western values in Australia. The ABC, the Guardian, telling us that there are no "NO Go areas" in Australia. Certainly not Lakemba! And, at the end of the video, the Australian policeman telling her that she can't go there. That she can't walk the streets. Because she would be "causing a public order offence", even as it would be the Muslim attacking her. 

This is sick stuff. This is crazy stuff. 

Yes, Hanson should have said "Islam" and not "Muslims". That's an own goal. We can say, as I've often said, "I like the Chinese, but I don't like the Chinese Communist Party". Or "I like the Russians, but I don't like Soviete communisms". Or whatever. You get it. It's fine to not like the ideology. We don't have to hone in on the individuals, because that just gives a free kick to the apologists. 

All in all, we're facing an extremely serious threat from a warlike, expansionist ideology, in all countries of the West. Which are so far responding like pussies. 

Harris Sultan is a brave Aussie. Used to be a Muslim. Now an apostate. For which Islam would kill him. That's the ideology the "religion" that we are letting into -- encouraging into -- our countries. 

More fools us. 

"Writing Doom" | The dangers of Super Intelligent AI. A short movie

 

AI, especially Super Intelligent AI, has me worried. I know that Elon Musk was so worried about the threat that he started Open AI, which has since been hijacked by Sam Altman. The court case is ongoing. 

So, Elon started XAi. We don't hear so much about the dangers of Super Intelligent Ai from him. Though I'm pretty sure he's still engaged with them. 

Meantime... follow the logic of this wonderful short film above and see if you don't come out somewhat more worried about the dangers to humanity from Super Intelligent AI. 

Halal Horrors

 

🚨A halal slaughterhouse in Warwickshire was found to have done the following in 2025:

➡️Slammed sheep against concrete floors and walls
➡️Played wolf noises on loudspeaker
➡️Some sheep lived for up to 4 minutes after having their necks cut
➡️Doors were slammed into animals… pic.twitter.com/fbvpRmNE9o

— Wolf 🐺 (@WorldByWolf) February 19, 2026

This is reported in the U.K. paper The Independent, which is leftie paper, so if it's reporting on something wrong in the immigrant community, you have to know it's true. They're not given to that sort of reporting normally, cause, you know, everything about Immigration is Good!

Except, killing animals in the Islamic way, Halal, is not so nice. 

I've banged on about this, in my blog here over the years. 

My own little push back against it, is to send angry emails to companies that advertise their products as Halal. Tell them how horrid Halal slaughtering is, and tell them I'm never going to buy their products. 

Now, we have a move in the U.K. and in America, by Muslims, to ban dogs. Because, you know, the Perfect Man, Muhammad, didn't like them. Reckoned that if you had dogs in the house, Angels would not visit. And Muslim believe this. And Muslims are now pushing for the ban of dogs in coutries to which they've emigrated. 

You've been nice enough to let us into your country. Now, please, would you do things the way we want them done? 

Aussie Dr Sydney Watson posts: 

 

Why aren't democrats from across the country flocking to LA or NYC? | Adam Carolla

Good question, Adam Carolla!

Why aren't democrats from across the country flocking to Los Angeles or New York? 🤔 youtube.com

Why aren't committed Democrats moving the most Democrat states? The most Blue states? When Democrats move, the move from their own Democrat (Blue) states to Republican (Red) states. 

What's going on? Why? Wouldn't it make more sense for Democrats, if they think they're way of governing is the best, to move to the places in America that are the most like their nirvana? The most like they keep telling us that we should all live? 

But no. When Democrats move, lilke out of California or New York, they move to Red states. Like Texas or Florida. 

So this topic warrants my "I don't get it" Label. 

I  don't get why Dems leave their Blue states, move to Red states. And then vote Blue. 

Why?

I asked a leftie-progressive friend of mine the other night. Please explain. All he could say was, yes, he might move to, say, Texas, a Red State, but that "I just can't vote Republican". But... but... why? 

If they're only going to muck things up again. And it's the reason people are leaving Blue places like LA and NYC. Well, he says, because he hopes that they might do better next time. I say: why not just go for the ones that have already shown they can do better? And to that, no real answer. Or one so confusing I couldn't understand it. We'd had quite a few wines by this stage. 

So, I still "don't get it".

In my case: I used to vote left my whole life, Labor in Australia. Followed the Dems in America. Then I noticed that the Reps seemed to be managing things better. So I shifted. That's it. If the Dems ever do do better, I could shift back. 

But why be so all "I've always voted left so I always will" about it? Doesn't make sense. 

Adam Carolla asks the logical question. 

Jiang, John, Jing

Outside was -22C. Inside toasty and the best hotpot we've had. 

Mr Jiang is our driver and guide. The place is the ski village of Yabuli in Harbin, NE China. 

The snow was good. The facilities not bad. The temperatures too cold for me. Though they did keep the snow in good condition. 

The Chinese Olympic ski team was practicing here. 

Sent from my iPad

Why don't people get married any more? Why the declining global birth rates?

Tell me, Grok: why do you think it is that people are getting married less these days? I have three children and several nephews and nieces. All in relationships. None of my kids or nieces is married. If I ask why not marry, they say "shut up, dad!" or similar. So... I don't know. Do you?

It's a common observation these days, and you're not alone in noticing it among your own family. 

In Australia (and similar trends appear in many Western countries), marriage rates have been declining for decades, with a particularly sharp drop among younger adults. Recent data from sources like the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), and surveys like HILDA show that:

The crude marriage rate has fallen from around 7 per 1,000 people in the early 2000s to about 5–5.5 in recent years (even after a post-COVID rebound).

Among people in their 20s and early 30s, the proportion who are married has dropped dramatically — for example, only about 20% of women aged 25–29 were married in recent surveys, compared to over 35% two decades ago.

De facto (live-in partner) relationships have risen correspondingly, now common for many couples, especially those with kids.

Your children's and nieces/nephews' generation (likely millennials and Gen Z -- "Zoomers") often see little practical need for formal marriage, especially since Australian family law treats long-term de facto couples almost the same as married ones for property, superannuation, spousal maintenance, and children. 

The "shut up, dad!" response is pretty classic — it's a mix of independence, eye-rolling at "old-school" ideas, and perhaps not wanting to explain deeper reasons.

Here are the main factors driving this shift, based on research and reports:

Marriage has become optional and more "deliberate"
People now view it as a conscious choice rather than a default life step. Many couples "try before you buy" by living together first (83% of couples who do marry have cohabited beforehand, up hugely from decades ago). If the relationship works long-term without the certificate, why add the formality? Stigma around living together or having kids outside marriage has largely vanished.

Financial and economic pressures
Housing affordability, high cost of living, student debt, and career instability make big life commitments feel risky. Weddings themselves are expensive (even modest ones), and many young people delay or skip marriage until (or unless) they feel financially secure. Economic insecurity also contributes to fewer people forming partnerships at all, or keeping them informal.

Later life milestones
People spend longer in education, take time to build careers (especially women, with greater workforce participation), and travel or focus on personal growth. The median age for first marriage has risen steadily (now around 30+ for both men and women). By the time they're "ready," marriage might not feel urgent — especially if kids arrive via de facto relationships.

Changing attitudes and fear of divorce
Many in this age group grew up seeing high divorce rates among their parents' generation (boomers had the peak). That creates caution: "Why risk the legal/financial mess if de facto offers similar protections?" Marriage is sometimes seen as outdated, unnecessary for commitment, or even a potential trap if things go wrong. There's also more acceptance of diverse relationship styles — single life, serial monogamy, or long-term partnering without rings.

Cultural and social shifts
Less religious influence (fewer church weddings), dating apps changing how relationships form, and a broader cultural glamorisation of independence and self-fulfilment all play roles. For some, marriage feels like conforming to expectations they don't share.

In short, it's not that your kids and their generation don't value committed relationships — many are in them, having children, building lives together — they just don't see the legal/ceremonial step as adding much value in modern Australia. 

The practical rights are largely covered without it, and the costs (financial, emotional, social) can feel high for something that's no longer seen as essential.If you're curious, a gentle, non-judgmental chat about their specific views (maybe over a beer rather than "why not marry?") might reveal more personal reasons — like "we're happy as is" or "the wedding industry is ridiculous." But yeah, the era when marriage was the automatic next step after a relationship has passed for many. It's a big social change, but families still thrive in de facto setups just fine.

ME: You don't see any connection between low marriage rates and plunging birth rates in nearly all thew world?

Yes, there is a clear and well-documented connection between declining marriage rates (or more broadly, declining rates of stable partnerships) and plunging birth rates across much of the world, including Australia. This link shows up consistently in demographic research, and it's often described as one of the strongest proximate (direct, immediate) causes of falling fertility in recent decades.

The Global Picture

Fertility rates (measured as total fertility rate, or TFR — average children per woman) have fallen dramatically worldwide since the mid-20th century, now below replacement level (2.1) in most developed countries and dropping fast in many developing ones too. Recent analyses (up to 2025 data) attribute a large portion of this decline to fewer people entering committed relationships that lead to children.

In many societies, married people have significantly higher fertility than unmarried or even cohabiting ones. Studies from the Institute for Family Studies and others show married couples are far more likely to have children (and more of them) than singles or cohabiters.

Declining marriage rates explain a substantial share of fertility drops — for example, one analysis found ~75% of the U.S. fertility decline since 2007 tied to shifts in who is married. Similar patterns appear in cross-country data, where drops in people being married or in stable couples track almost one-to-one with fewer births.

In places like East Asia (e.g., South Korea, where extramarital births are rare), falling marriage rates account for the majority (80%+) of birth rate declines over recent decades. In Western countries, where cohabitation is more common, the story includes both fewer partnerships overall and sometimes lower fertility even within cohabiting unions due to greater instability.

Other factors contribute (economic pressures, education/career priorities, housing costs, shifting norms around family), but relationship formation — especially marriage as a stable context for kids — is frequently the biggest single driver in decomposition studies.

In Australia SpecificallyAustralia mirrors this trend closely. The TFR has continued falling, hitting around 1.48 in 2024 and projected to drop further to ~1.42 in 2025–26 (well below replacement). Marriage rates have declined steadily, with fewer people marrying young or at all, while cohabitation has risen but not fully offset the drop in partnered people (especially at peak childbearing ages).

From 1991–2019 (and trends continuing), the falling proportion of partnered women (particularly married) contributed negatively to fertility, especially among younger ages. Births to married mothers dropped from ~77% to ~64%, with cohabiting births rising but not enough to compensate fully.

Increasing singlehood (neither married nor cohabiting) among women in childbearing years has directly pulled down overall fertility levels.

Even though Australian law treats long-term de facto partners similarly to married ones for many rights, cohabiting couples often have fewer children on average than married ones (due to less perceived stability or commitment), and many people delay or skip partnering altogether.

Your observation about your kids and nieces/nephews fits right in: they're in relationships (often de facto), having or planning kids, but skipping formal marriage. 

In aggregate, though, fewer people reach that stable partnered stage (or do so later), fewer have multiple kids, and overall births drop. It's not that committed relationships have vanished entirely — many still form families — but the shift away from marriage (and sometimes away from any long-term partnership) means fewer births than in past generations.

In short, yes — the connection is strong and causal in many analyses: fewer marriages/partnerships → fewer babies. It's a key part of why global birth rates are plunging, even as other explanations (like costs or individualism) play supporting roles. If policymakers want to boost fertility, addressing barriers to stable relationships often comes up as more impactful than just cash incentives for kids.

=======================

Me, adding: Fear of Climate Change. I've had this mentioned direct to me, several times. And seen it written about. The fear -- in my view unfounded -- has led many to think that it's "not fair" or "too dangerous" to bring new young life into the world. 

British schoolchildren forced to accept Islam | Ali Tabrizi

 

This is truly shocking. I think it's horrifying. Not a conspiracy theory, because it's happening out in the open. Nothing is secret here. 

That letter in the middle of the post -- from the Head of a Welsh school about how they're not going  to celebrate Easter becoz "inclusivity"-- basically means this: 

We WILL celebrate Muslim Ramadan because all the non-Muslim kids (still the majority in the school) will be forced to take part, on pain of being labelled "racist". But... 

We will NOT celebrate Christian Easter, because all the Muslim kids in the school (still the minority in the school) will refuse to take part on pain of the teachers being labelled "racist". 

So... "inclusivity". Which is: include one. Not the other. Inclusio unum non est inclusio alterium... (or something). 

Scary but likely true: a Muslim guest teacher tells young kids at a school in Wales: "You will all be Muslim by Grade 6". The British State is assisting. Dozens, hundreds, of NGO's are assisting. 

Keir Starmer the traitor, is also assisting. Anyone -- like Sir Jack Ratcliffe -- suggesting that the UK is being colonised -- which is happening before our eyes -- is labelled, by Sturmer, as "racist and unacceptable" and threatened with jail. Yes, it is unacceptable, Keir, that the UK is being colonised. But... To Keir the "unacceptable" part is noticing it, and saying something about it. 

The author of the channel above, Ali Tabrizi, is a Christian refugee from Iran. I'm not on board with his whole "Jesus the saviour" stuff, as I'm a lifelong atheist. But it's not him or his Christianity that I fear. I fear Islam. Because it is just so damn... Supremacist. Sharia law is being pushed. Demanded. Which is how to install the tenets of Islam: hatred of LGBT, oppression of women, subjugation of non-Muslimis, punishment of apostasy, bans on blasphemy. 

The supremacism is happening so openly, so widely, so regularly, across the whole of Europe and even in my own home country of Australia, that one cannot with any honesty deny it. 

The question now is not whether or not we deny it. It's whether we'll do anything about it. My fear is we won't. In which case Islam will indeed rule the world. Not tomorrow, but very likely the day after. Within the life of my kids. 

Just look at Britain. And it's worse in France. Oh dear... 

Bread, Butter, Breakfast, Binoculars, Book, Bifocals, Birds, Balcony

Muslim massacres of Jews up to establishment of the state of Israel | The Perfect Man

Click above to enlarge 

I’m posting the list above for the record. The search was “Muslim attacks on, or massacres of, Jews AD 600 to 1948”.  Note: “This list is not exhaustive…”.

Exhaustive or not, it clearly disproves the delusion that Muslim Arab states and Muslim residents of the region that became Israel, were incensed by the announcement of the State of Israel in 1948: “If only Israel would go away, all would be well.”

No. Muslims have been killing Jews FOREVER. Not just since the creation of Israel.

These are attacks on Jews since world's worst man, Muhammad became a man, c. AD 600. The man who Muslims insist on calling "The Perfect Man". A Perfect Man who took part in — who instigated and led — the first two of the massacres listed above, the genocide of the Banu Qurayza tribe of Jews and the subsequent “…extermination of Arabian Jewish tribes”. 

The Perfect Man who personally, proudly, beheaded over 600 male Jews in 622. 

ADDED: The Sirah, Islam’s official and authoritative biography of Muhammad, proudly notes The Perfect Man’s “compassion”. How so ? Because he ordered that only men of the Jewish tribes be killed. If in doubt, boys were made to drop their pants. If they had any pubic hair, they were deemed a man and promptly beheaded. Often by Muhammad himself. Jewish women and children were kept as slaves. That’s what counts as compassion in Islam. Up to today! Muslims are proud of this! Proud of their Perfect Man.

All of these massacres, including those personally carried out by Muhammad, “Mr Perfect”, are recorded in detail in the Sirah of Muhammad, the official Muslim biography of the "Perfect Man", by Ibn Ishaq. 

I’ve read the Sirah. It's in my library. This book is a celebratory, blood-drenched recitation of the horrors that Muhammad committed in this own lifetime. And of the atrocities, the tortures, the murders, the massacres, that he and his followers committed. In his life Muhammad personally started of took part in, 27 major battles. He was a warmonger. A swordsman. A murderer. A rapist. A Perfect Man.

Viewed Proudly up to today.

And yet somehow, we are asked to accept — as a depressing number of westerners appear to — that this is a "Religion of Peace". (Spellcheck even autocompleted "Peace" for me after I’d typed  in “Religion”; that’s how deep the brainwashing is).

Note the second of the massacres listed above: "Extermination of Arabian Jewish Tribes". Extermination! 

Muslims, Islamists, are trying to do this until today. To exterminate every last Jew from the Holy Land. Which is Holy only because the Jews were there and because Christians followed a revolutionary Jew. 

Arab Muslims occupy 99.7% of the lands in the Middle East. They cannot abide that 0.3% of the lands are occupied by Jews, the original and indigenous occupants.

They — Hamas, the PA, residents of Gaza, Muslim settlers of Judea and Samaria, surrounding Muslim states — do not want a "Two State Solution". They want every Jew cleansed from the Middle East. And then from the world. 

….

Goodness! I do seem to have gone on a bit of a rave!  When all I’d wanted to do was to post a list of Muslim massacres of Jews over the centuries.

(By the way, try the other way around —  ask AI the number of Jewish attacks or massacres of Muslims — and it’s slim pickings).

No, Janan Ganesh, I DON'T mourn the passing of the "liberal world order"

No, Janan, I don't mourn the passing of the "liberal world order." It might still have some zombie strength left—who knows? But if it does fade away, good riddance.

An old and dear friend of mine, a bit of a leftie, sent me Janan Ganesh's Financial Times piece* out of the blue. 
Ganesh urges liberals to grieve the end of this post-1945 system—the most successful international order in history, he says: unprecedented prosperity, relative peace, progress for the West. 
No country benefited more than the US. Don't apologize or resign yourself, he argues; mourn it openly, toast what it achieved, and don't let populists own the narrative. Elegiac, defiant, even haunted by a Top Gun line.
Sounds lovely in summary. But it wasn't all rosy.
I'm a traitor to my class. Yes, I am! The elite class—upper-middle, in charge of "things." I got there by job and circumstance, not choice. Fine. But now I'm a traitor because we Elites have abandoned the working and middle classes in the West. They've suffered—and it's our fault. Because of this "liberal world order" that exploded global wealth since WWII, while quietly gutting them.
I once loved it. Loved it. Post-war it ovresaw:

• Non-punitive treatment of war losers. 
• The Marshall Plan rebuilding Europe. 
• The UN, mostly funded by America. 
• GATT — the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade— which birthed the WTO. 
• The Korean War keeping South Korea safe for democratic capitalism against the North.

Mistakes? Plenty. Vietnam. Iraq. Afghanistan. But overall, it kept the world humming along.
Who gained most? Elites. Like me. Like my friend. Like most of our circle. Supporting Trump now—his focus on middle America, the working class—is apostasy from the tribe. But if Republicans won't stand for the working and middle classes, who will? The Democrats ditched them long ago for inner-city elites. We. Inner city elites. 

Since 2000—especially China's 2001 WTO entry as a "developing" country—the gains turned K-shaped: elites and big-state mercantilists soaring up; Western industrial heartlands and workers sliding down. 
Globalization lifted global GDP but hollowed out factories, fueling the resentment populists exploit. Deregulation boomed—then crashed in '08, shattering trust. Inequality exploded at home even as absolute poverty fell globally.
The UN? Thoroughly corrupted. "I am the United Nations". 
[My Dad was an Australian representative to the U.N. in the early sixties. He was pretty critical of the U.N. even then; it's got a lot worse since]
This breakdown wasn't Trump's doing. Peter Zeihan (no Trump fan) makes it clear: the rot started earlier. End of the Cold War. China's lawless mercantilism. ["The Global World Order is Collapsing"]
Trump is responding—America First, tariffs as leverage, allies paying their defense share, force used for actual peace, not nation-building fantasies.
The old order enriched rivals like China, traded sovereignty for cheap imports, and left ordinary people behind. Its passing isn't tragedy. It's correction.
I don't mourn it. I welcome what's next: nations that put their own people first.
=====================

ADDED: In the 1970s I was an Australian diplomat. I worked with American colleagues on the latest round of the GATT. We loved this new World Order we were creating. Of course we were paid to love it! But we did. At least I did, and as I recall, we all did. The mantra, by the way, was "Free Trade Good; Tariffs Bad". Which I believed right up till recently. [But that's a whole n'other issue].
*Ganesh's FT article is behind a paywall. If you have FT access, the URL is https://www.ft.com/content/3dd3f37b-a783-4f12-a837-764e9f429b01

Otherwise, copy the link in italics above and paste into the bottom box at Archive.