The European Union passed several resolutions condemning Palestinian Authority educational materials containing antisemitism and glorification of jihad, the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-se) has reported.

In the EU’s report on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2024, it called for any future funding to the PA to be conditional on the removal of “antisemitic content, incitement to violence and the glorification of martyrdom and jihad” from textbooks.

The European Parliament’s budget report emphasized that EU financial assistance and engagement “should support education that promotes peace, tolerance and coexistence.”

This may seem like a no-brainer. But although I first read about the phenomenon of the vicious Jew-hatred in Palestinian textbooks some time during the 1990s, until now I’ve been unaware of any particular European move against them, and certainly no effective ones. Whether or not the PA complies, Palestinian society is inundated with this sort of thing. But the textbooks are an important part of it.

Doing some research now, I discover this is not a new phenomenon with the EU, although at this point their statements seems a little stronger. Here’s an article from 2021 [my emphasis]:

A study commissioned by the European Union examined 156 Palestinian Authority textbooks and 16 teachers’ guides. Eighteen texts are from 2020, the rest from 2017-2019. The report said they present “ambivalent – sometimes hostile – attitudes towards Jews and the characteristics they attribute to the Jewish people” and their “frequent use of negative attributions in relation to the Jewish people…suggest a conscious perpetuation of anti-Jewish prejudice, especially when embedded in the current political context.”

The EU provides funding for the Palestinian education system …

So the EU helps pay for the education in hatred. The article goes on to say this:

In October 2021, Britain announced it would cease direct funding to Palestinian education in the PA. The government denied it; however, the decision was related to the EU report. According to an investigation by the Jewish News [UK], roughly $137 million was spent by Britain in the previous five years, including on the salaries of the Palestinian civil servants and teachers responsible for drafting the PA textbooks.

In 2022, a group of European Union lawmakers called on the European Commission to reduce funding to the PA if it continues refusing to purge its K-12 curriculum of materials that “incite schoolchildren to hate Jews and emulate terrorists.”

But guess what? Although it appears the funding was frozen for a very short while (the article doesn’t make it clear whether it was just the British funding or the EU funding), it was restored in 2022 pending still another study. How many studies do you need? The problem with the textbooks isn’t subtle, it’s huge and overt.

More history here:

According to IMPACT-se, this is the seventh consecutive year in which such condemnations have been issued.
“>In July 2024, the PA signed an agreement with the EU to reform its curriculum, affirming its commitment to the process, but not all of the EU’s guidelines for the removal of violent, extremist content have been met.

As of November 2025, according to an IMPACT-se report, PA textbooks and educational materials still include content that glorifies jihad and incitement to violence.

Hard to say whether it will end up mattering this time, but it continues to be unconscionable that the EU funds this.

The second piece of news is this from Sweden:

Maria Malmer Stenergard, Sweden’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, announced before parliamentary representatives that the government will no longer use the term “Islamophobia.” She described the concept as “problematic,” because, according to her, “it focuses on individuals’ irrational fears.”

Stenergard emphasized that the Swedish government will also seek to replace the term with “anti-Muslim racism” or “anti-Muslim hatred” in international bodies, including the European Union and the United Nations. Discussions on this matter are set to continue during the third week of May in Brussels.

The decision has been welcomed by the right-wing Sweden Democrats party. Charlie Weimers, a member of the European Parliament for the party, said, “Islamists have exploited the term Islamophobia to advance their agenda and secure EU funding.” He described the government’s action as “finally scrapping a fabricated concept.”

Faw Azzat, Secretary General of the Global Alliance for Peace and Justice (GAPF) in Sweden, also praised the decision, stating that the term Islamophobia was “coined by Islamists themselves to equate criticism of a religion with racism against people—a semantic trick dressed up as anti-racism.”

I think this is pretty meaningless as well. Whether it’s called “Islamaphobia” or “anti-Muslim racism,” the term is often applied not only to generalized hatred of Muslims but also over-applied to rational and realistic evaluations of the radical Islamist devotion to terrorism and violence against the infidel.

The post Small changes in Europe? appeared first on The New Neo.

O’Donnell on Sunday began reading a portion of the reported manifesto to Trump, saying, “The so-called manifesto is a stunning thing to read, Mr. President. He appears to reference a motive in it. He writes this quote, ‘Administration officials, they are targets.’ And he also wrote this, ‘I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.’”

“Yeah, he did write that. I’m — I’m not a rapist. I didn’t rape anybody,” Trump said. “I’m not a pedophile. You read that crap from some sick person? I got associated with all — stuff that has nothing to do with me. I was totally exonerated,” he said, later calling the CBS News senior correspondent “disgraceful.”

“You know, he’s a sick person,” Trump continued. “But you should be ashamed of yourself reading that because I’m not any of those things.”

Critics of O’Donnell on the right agree with Trump that it was a kind of “Have you stopped beating your wife?” question that amplified the quote on a major TV program, without O’Donnell remarking on the obvious falsity of the allegations – probably because the media and Democrats have fostered such allegations. “Pedophile” is connected to the constant Epstein misrepresentations, “rapist” is a misreading of the court case won by E. Jean Carroll, and “traitor” could apply to anything from fake Russiagate to fake Nazi.

So yes, O’Donnell’s question was both inappropriate and designed to harm Trump. But I’m surprised that no articles and no videos I’ve seen discussing the exchange mentioned her truly pernicious followup question, which I bring you here:

Did you catch the statement of O’Donnell’s that has commonly been left out, the one I’m referring to as her followup question?: “Oh, you think, you think he was referring to you?” coupled with a mildly incredulous look? That sentence in particular reveals the duplicitous, disingenuous nature of O’Donnell’s approach. She knows full well that Trump would interpret the manifesto quote as referring to him because of course it does (for one thing, it levels charges that have become common against him, and for another the charges are against a single person and not a group). And yet she pretends the subject of the quote is in doubt and she uses Trump’s understandable interpretation – really, there is no other one possible – to imply some sort of consciousness of guilt on Trump’s part.

That’s what tells me what a nasty piece of work O’Donnell is, even more than the “pedophile, etc.” quote itself. And she sets it up by starting with another manifesto quote, “Administration officials, they are targets.” This is an attempt to establish that the shooter was also targeting the entire group, so that her later “oh, you think he was referring to you?” question might give her pose of feigned doubt some supposed credibility.

The entire thing was a setup, IMHO. O’Donnell almost certainly knew that reading the quotes might get a rise out of Trump – as well it should – and would cause the interview to be discussed and watched more widely.

NOTE: If you watch the whole clip, instead of just the part I cued up, you’ll see how the left is spinning it.

The post What Norah O’Donnell said during the Trump interview after she quoted the shooter’s “manifesto” appeared first on The New Neo.

Nothing glazes my eyes over faster than reading law. Yet one like me would think a written law shouldn’t need to be determined, it should be cut and dry what it means. Seems that isn’t the case and hasn’t been for a long time.

I think I might have said something similar prior to going to law school. But if there’s one thing I learned there – really really learned – it was that it’s impossible to do as described. The phenomenon is not something recent, either. It’s something that’s an intrinsic and unavoidable part of law.

The reason this is true is connected to what Karl Popper pointed out about language itself:

Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you.

And that is true of all laws. One must try to write laws that are as clear and comprehensive as possible. But attempts to clarify all gray areas that can arise from a law will inevitably lead to laws that are incredibly lengthy and convoluted in their attempts to cover all bases, an attempt that always fails because life always serves up the unexpected and unforeseen. So these attempts at clarification often result in statutes that serve to make things murkier and more unwieldly.

That’s where courts come in. They are tasked with interpreting and applying laws. That’s how we get precedent and case law. And because it’s a matter of interpretation, we often get disagreements. The disagreements can be based on the definition of a word or phrase, the history of the people who passed the statute and what they said the law was about at the time, and the legal philosophy of the judges (which can be based on politics and how “elastic” they think a law should be).

It’s amazing that the legal system functions as well as it does, considering.

The post Law, clarity, and simplicity appeared first on The New Neo.

Never mind that a ceasefire followed, and that whatever threat he made was a negotiating tactic. Many of them were able to immediately pivot, with no sense of irony or shame, to some version of, “Trump TACO – he always chickens out, the coward.”

But you can search and search among them, as well as MSM articles on the subject, and it will be very difficult to find the full text of Trump’s actual threat. It’s not as though the text is long, either; it’s just a paragraph. One might think that before interpreting his meaning a person might actually read it and then quote it? But actually looking at the text and discussing it in any fair manner would ruin the anti-Trump propaganda message.

And they know they don’t need to do it. They count on their audiences (or people in general, and that includes Trump defenders) not to look it up. They just cite the first sentence for the most part, and then react to that.

But the whole thing is still up there for anyone to see. And here it is:

A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less redicalized minds prevail, maybe something wonderful can happen. WHO KNOWS? We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and ocmplex history of the World. 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end. God Bless the Great People of Iran!

This had been preceded by an Easter day post of Trump’s featuring the f-word (among other things) and starting with this: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped in one, in Iran.”

How does any of this translate into nuclear weapons in anything except the Trump-haters’ fevered brains? Power plants and bridges (even if capitalized) don’t need nuclear weapons. And the “civilization” in that Tuesday message is quite obviously the “47 years of extortion, corruption, and death” that he threatens to end or supposedly (hopefully?) has already ended, being replaced by these supposedly “less-radicalized minds” with whom he’s now dealing. And that last sentence – “God Bless the Great People of Iran!” (with the capitalizations and the exclamation point) not only makes it clear that Trump has no intention of harming the ordinary population of Iran much less wiping them out, it is also in line with virtually everything he’s said and done up to this point.

So the misunderstanding by the anti-Trump pundits and politicians and MSM propagandists (hmmm; three m-words) is either willful or strikingly negligent or both. I believe it’s willful; I believe they did read the whole thing for the most part and understood it, but assumed their audience wouldn’t read it and that the first sentence could be successfully exploited for anti-Trump propaganda purposes. But if the pundits and politicians and MSM propagandists didn’t read the whole thing, that’s where the abysmal negligence would come in.

You can read more of their reactions here as well as here.

It’s certainly possible to critique Trump’s use of the word “civilization.” It was purposely hyperbolic, although the rest of the paragraph made that more clear. And of course it’s possible to criticize the war itself in good faith, for various reasons. But to pretend Trump was ready to use nukes and that he should be impeached for that? No, that’s not done in good faith.

It’s also instructive to see some newer posts from Trump, such as this:

All U.S. Ships, Aircraft, and Military Personnel, with additional Ammunition, Weaponry, and anything else that is appropriate and necessary for the lethal prosecution and destruction of an already substantially degraded Enemy, will remain in place in, and around, Iran, until such time as the REAL AGREEMENT reached is fully complied with. If for any reason it is not, which is highly unlikely, then the “Shootin’ Starts,” bigger, and better, and stronger than anyone has ever seen before. It was agreed, a long time ago, and despite all of the fake rhetoric to the contrary – NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS and, the Strait of Hormuz WILL BE OPEN & SAFE. In the meantime our great Military is Loading Up and Resting, looking forward, actually, to its next Conquest. AMERICA IS BACK!

Or this, intended to counter various MSM lies:

The Failing New York Times and Fake News CNN each reported a totally FAKE TEN POINT PLAN on the Iran negotiations which was meant to discredit the people involved in the peace process. All ten points were a made up HOAX – EVIL LOSERS!!! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

I saw that 10-point plan discussed in the MSM and even by some on the right as though it was agreed on by Trump. That seemed preposterous on the face of it, but people were taking it seriously.

We also have this from Trump:

Numerous Agreements, Lists, and Letters are being sent out by people that have absolutely nothing to do with the U.S.A. / Iran Negotiation, in many cases, they are total Fraudsters, Charlatans, and WORSE. They will be rapidly exposed after our Federal Investigation is completed. There is only one group of meaningful “POINTS” that are acceptable to the United States, and we will be discussing them behind closed doors during these Negotiations. These are the POINTS that are the basis on which we agreed to a CEASEFIRE. It is something that is reasonable, and can easily be dispensed with. It’s very much like Fake News CNN last night, headlining a “source” that had no power or authority to write a Letter claiming great authority. President DONALD J. TRUMP

I’m not fond of Trump’s writing style myself. But I think I understand its purposes and I often see its effectiveness. I’m not grading him on style points, even if I’d wish for a more elevated one. I’m grading him on accomplishments.

So far, in a little over a month, Iran’s leadership and capacity for war have been very considerably degraded. A year ago, if someone had told you those thing would be happening in that short amount of time with very little loss of US life, you’d probably be in awe. And this thing isn’t over yet, either.

The post Trump’s actual statement in his “civilization” threat, and the reactions to it appeared first on The New Neo.

“Tonight, at my direction as Commander in Chief, the United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“I have previously warned these Terrorists that if they did not stop the slaughtering of Christians, there would be hell to pay, and tonight, there was,” the president continued. …

“Under my leadership, our Country will not allow Radical Islamic Terrorism to prosper. May God Bless our Military, and MERRY CHRISTMAS to all, including the dead Terrorists, of which there will be many more if their slaughter of Christians continues.”

This was done in coordination with the government of Nigeria, which provided the intelligence for the strikes.

When I emphasize the message aspect of this action, it’s because I think that was paramount. I don’t think it was so much about killing these particular individuals, but rather about saying, “You’re not safe anywhere, even if you’re not directly killing Americans.” I believe the goal is to have a chilling effect on the group as a whole, and on other similar groups around the world.

It’s also an interesting move of Trump’s in terms of the “America First!” part of the right that is also Christian. People such as the abominable Tucker Carlson focus on stirring up the idea that Israel is out to harm Christians in the Middle East, which is a preposterous assertion, and sometimes ignore – as Carlson does – the far greater war of Islamic extremists against Christians both in the Middle East and in Africa. This attack and these statements make it clear to people such as Carlson where Trump’s priorities lie, and challenges them to comment.

I am also struck by Trump’s language. It’s the sort of thing – the antithesis of diplomat-speak – that gets so many Trump-haters agitated and claiming that Trump’s a stupid boor. Here he speaks in almost cartoon-like language; one almost expects him to write SHAZAM!! However, I see this is very purposeful and part of his unequivocal message: I have power, and I mean business, and I mean for you to understand that.

The post Trump sends a message to ISIS in Nigeria appeared first on The New Neo.

TIM WALZ says that people are driving by his house and using the term ‘retard.’

“This creates danger… we know how these things go, they start with taunts, they turn to violence.”

Well no, Tim. The term “retard” is rude, but doesn’t usually lead to any violence – except, perhaps, in Nazi Germany, where they killed disabled people as “life unworthy of life.”

In this country, however, calling someone “Nazi” or “Fascist,” as the left is inclined to do, is more likely to lead to violence against the person so labeled. And in fact, as luck would have it, Walz himself has used terms like that for people on the right, or even for law enforcement. For example, here he called ICE agents “modern-day Gestapo” (he mispronounced the word, but it was clear that’s what he meant). And here’s some of Walz’s oh-so-gentle rhetoric about Trump:

Those words are far more likely to incite violence compared to “retard,” which is very mild in comparison.

And of course, during the 2024 campaign Walz called himself a “knucklehead,” which means “a stupid, bumbling, inept person.” He was being too kind. Knave and fool.

The post What’s in a name? That which we call a knucklehead by any other name would smell as sweet appeared first on The New Neo.

This is what it’s come to:

An assault victim has been convicted of a homophobic hate crime after she branded her attacker a ‘f****t’ in text messages whilst ranting about being beaten up.

Care home worker Elizabeth Kinney, 34, was said to have sent a ‘barrage’ of messages to a former friend during which she described being attacked by a male mutual acquaintance.

During the messaging the single mother-of-four even sent pictures of her injuries from the assault, which resulted in her being admitted to hospital.

But Kinney, an aspiring nurse, was reported to police over the use of the word ‘f****t’ to describe the unnamed man and later charged with malicious communications offences.

At Sefton magistrates court Kinney, from Tranmere, pleaded guilty to causing to be sent by public communication network an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages.

She insisted her words were a ‘thoughtless rant’ and that she was not attacking anyone’s sexuality.

But JPs said her remark was ‘homophobic’ and gave her an ‘uplifted’ sentence of a 12 month community order.

The article goes on to add that no one has been charged in the alleged assault.

Let me just say that “former friend” would certainly be the case – accent on the “former.” Because it seems it was this former friend who reported Kinney to the Thought Police. The ex-friend seems to have complained that receiving these texts constituted a terrible trauma for her:

Outlining the facts, Jacqueline Whiting, prosecuting, said: ‘The defendant and the victim in this matter had been friends but had a falling out which resulted in an incident on the October 27, 2024 whereby abusive and homophobic text messages were sent to the victim causing her alarm and distress.

‘The Crown place this offence in the highest category of its type due to the effect related to sexual orientation and the greater harm because it had moderate impact.’

Chilling.

NOTE: The article is adorned with sexy photos of Kinney – seemingly selfies. Don’t know what that’s all about.

NOTE II: Please see this previous post of mine on the subject of free speech – or rather, the lack thereof – in Britain.

The post After all, Orwell did set <i>Nineteen Eighty-Four</i> in Britain appeared first on The New Neo.

One good example is the morphing of the term “illegal aliens” to “illegal immigrants” to “undocumented workers” and then to “migrants. And have you heard of the word “unhoused” to refer to homeless street people?

Another example has to do with “book bans.” The phrase conjures up Nazi book burnings and dystopic films like Fahrenheit 451, and it’s meant to do so.

But the current “bans” aren’t actual bans at all. They are about school libraries as well as what books to teach in classrooms. Students are completely free to read whatever books they wish (or whatever books their parents let them read, if parents still have control).

Removing a book from a school library or failing to put it there in the first place, or deciding it will not be part of the curriculum, amounts to not recommending it, and/or not facilitating exposure to it. This is a very different thing from banning something. But the left would like you to confuse the two. The linked article does mention schools, but the word “ban” nearly overrides it and is not only misleading but is almost certainly intended to cause an emotional reaction and a connection with Nazis and the like.

From the article:

A new report on book bans in U.S. schools finds Stephen King as the author most likely to be censored and the country divided between states actively restricting works and those attempting to limit or eliminate bans.

PEN America’s “Banned in the USA,” released Wednesday, tracks more than 6,800 instances of books being temporarily or permanently pulled for the 2024-2025 school year. The new number is down from more than 10,000 in 2023-24, but still far above the levels of a few years ago, when PEN didn’t even see the need to compile a report.

Perhaps they didn’t feel the need because a little while ago there were fewer “bans” because school libraries didn’t feel the need to stock books for children promoting homosexuality or trans topics, or to have Stephen King books in primary schools.

I don’t recall any controversial books in my school library, which was pretty small anyway. Nor were they in the children’s room of my local municipal library, which didn’t allow children into the adult section (not “adult” as in sex books, just adult as in grownups) until high school. And even then, the adult section was pretty tame as well.

[NOTE: Stephen King got into some recent trouble on “X,” with a lie he told about Charlie Kirk and which King ultimately retracted.]

The post Book “bans” in schools appeared first on The New Neo.

This was uttered many times a day, usually by young or middle-aged women to the older man who is my ex-husband. I don’t know what it conjures up for you, but to me it seems a bit – well, a bit forward. After all, as the very first Google result states, the definition is “the body’s important internal organs, especially the gut or the genitalia.”

Indeed.

Yes, I’m aware that these women meant vital signs such as blood pressure, temperature, and oxygen levels, which they proceeded to take (not to “grab”). But I find my levity where I can.

And then the other day, when I was waiting in the checkout line at the market, a young woman employee reached across me and bent down, asking, “Can I steal these baskets?” as she took the handbaskets that were on the floor near the counter.

Grab and steal. What’s with these young women today? – asks the old curmudgeon.

The post “I’m going to grab your vitals” appeared first on The New Neo.

But I’m also writing this to focus on Psalm 121, which he quotes thusly:

The Jewish Publication Society’s 1985 translation of Psalm 121 reads as follows:

“I turn my eyes to the mountains; from where will my help come?
My help comes from the LORD, maker of heaven and earth.
He will not let your foot give way; your guardian will not slumber;
See, the guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps! …”

I remember that psalm, but it’s the King James Version that I recall. That version goes like this:

I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, From whence cometh my help. My help cometh from the LORD, Which made heaven and earth. He will not suffer thy foot to be moved: He that keepeth thee will not slumber. Behold, he that keepeth Israel Shall neither slumber nor sleep.

I’ve written previously about my preference for the King James Version rather than later versions; you can find the post here. And with Psalm 121 I feel the same way, especially the line “Behold, he that keepeth Israel Shall neither slumber nor sleep.” What’s wrong with “behold” and why would anyone change it to “see”? I don’t know the Hebrew, and perhaps “see” is more correct, but I can’t imagine why because see and behold mean more or less the same thing, although the latter has much more gravitas and importance. Don’t we want gravitas and importance for the guardian/keeper of Israel?

And what about guardian versus keeper? The former is a somewhat legalistic word and it even conjures up the idea of an adult taking care of a child. It seems all wrong to me. Now, you might not like the archaic “eth” suffix on the word “keep,” and although I like it very much I can see an argument to leave it off. But I see nothing wrong with “keep” or “keepeth” versus “guardian.”

And there’s that extra word “shall” in the King James Version. I very much like it; it adds weight as well. After all, “the guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps” sounds more like the guardian might have insomnia and we don’t know why. The “shall” in the KJV connects the guarding and keeping with the vigilance involved in not sleeping.

And the “slumber nor sleep” is redundant, of course, because they are synonyms; but saying something two times in different ways is one of the conventions of Biblical poetry. Fortunately, both versions keep that convention (or do they guard that convention?).

The post “He that keepeth Israel” appeared first on The New Neo.