In Virginia’s Giuffre’s new book, “Nobody’s Girl,” we first meet Jeffrey Epstein lying naked on a massage table, in a house where Ghislaine Maxwell has lured the 17-year-old Virginia from her job at the Mar-a-Lago spa, with an offer to meet a billionaire who “loves to help people.” In short order, he rolls over with a full erection and begins stroking himself.
Giuffre recalls what happened next in a dreamlike sequence:
Maxwell peeling off her clothes, a mischievous look on her face; Maxwell behind me, unzipping my skirt and pulling my Mar-a-Lago polo shirt over my head; Epstein … reached for an electric vibrator, which he forced between my thighs, as Maxwell commanded me to pinch Epstein’s nipples as she rubbed her own breasts, and mine.” … ‘[P]inch him harder,’ Maxwell said, as Epstein moaned. So I did. ‘Go down on him,’ she said. I did that too. Eventually, Maxwell ordered me to straddle Epstein so he could penetrate me. Again, I obeyed.
In another charming story about Maxwell, Giuffre describes Epstein’s procurer becoming haggard and jealous after turning 40. “Maxwell began lashing out at me during our threesomes. For example, she would grab a larger-than-life-size dildo and use it to hurt me. If I complained, she hurt me more.”
So it was great to read this past weekend that the minimal security prison where Trump moved Maxwell is working out great for her. In letters to her family and lawyer, she says her new accommodations are “fantastic” and gushes over the special treatment she’s now getting.
Wow — Trump totally knows what the MAGA base wants. Because if there’s one thing MAGA simply adores, it’s pedophiles. Especially when they’re (mostly) Democratic donors. They’ll go to the mat for those guys!
Actually, I think that’s not what MAGA wants, at all.
Trump’s toadying treatment of Maxwell, however, would not surprise Giuffre. She’d been used by people for sex her entire life, even before she had the misfortune of running into Maxwell. And every time, her abusers were protected.
Giuffre’s life from age 7 to 17 is nothing but incest (committed by her own father), rape and being sexually trafficked. Unbelievable as it sounds, this is all provable — with names, convictions and corroborating evidence.
Then along comes Maxwell. In the middle of that three-way sex scene at the beginning — when Epstein starts masturbating — is this heartbreaking paragraph:
A familiar emptiness flooded me. Just minutes before, I had arrived at Epstein’s mansion hoping that I was turning a corner. Now I knew I was right back where I’d worked so hard not to be. … [T]he disappointment was excruciating. I blamed myself. ‘Is sex all anyone will ever want from me?’ a voice inside me shrieked, as another harsher voice chided: ‘Yes, you idiot. You knew that already.’
It would be great to ask her what this was like, but unfortunately, we can’t because Giuffre killed herself earlier this year.
But imagine living in her world — a world where prominent, wealthy men are perfectly comfortable in a home with photos of naked girls lining the walls, bathroom soaps in the shape of penises and vaginas, a host joking that women are merely “a life-support system for a vagina,” and teen girls who are directed to walk around completely nude.
A world where she was required to have regular sex with Epstein and Maxwell, as well as dozens of strangers, such as a guy in his 70s, whose “face seemed to have shriveled like one of those folk-art dolls whose heads are dried-up apples,” and another who was sexually aroused by abusing her so badly that she was left bleeding from her mouth, vagina and anus. “Some men are like that,” Epstein said, before asking her to service him again.
After all that, she watched a member of the British royal family, Prince Andrew (not anymore!) be photographed strolling with Epstein, then a registered sex offender.
She read a glowing Vanity Fair profile of Epstein that touted him as “good-looking,” “charming,” “very generous,” “innocent” and “child-like” — but dropped the pedophilia stuff because, as editor Graydon Carter told the writer, Vicky Ward, “He’s sensitive about the young women.” (Carter continues to deny Ward’s account.)
Giuffre watched and waited when, in 2015, ABC News refused to run Amy Robach’s interview with her, because, as network executives told the anchor, “Who’s Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.”
But every now and then, the real world intervenes, proving that Giuffre’s microcosm is not normal, not all men are perverts, not all motherly women are monsters, and Giuffre’s only reason for existing is not to learn “how to please a man.”
For example, Giuffre’s brothers are outraged and angrily confront their father. (His response: a blank stare — “really weird, embarrassed, but perverted.”)
Another normal human male is Detective Joseph Recarey, the Palm Beach Police Department’s lead investigator, who broke the case and then meticulously assembled a mountain of evidence — all while being stonewalled by the Democratic D.A., Barry Krischer, and harassed by Epstein’s private investigators.
And there’s Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kevin Newsom, a Trump appointee, who wrote an opinion that will be forever memorialized in the Federal Reporter, saying Epstein and Maxwell’s victims “suffered unspeakable horror” at the hands of “one of this era’s most infamous child predators.” He called the case “beyond scandalous” and a “national disgrace,” concluding: “The whole thing makes me sick.”
Most men are like Giuffre’s brothers, Det. Recarey and Judge Newsom. But, for the first 22 years of her life, Giuffre’s universe was a very different, very dark place. Not surprisingly, at the end of the book, she despairs of ever living in a world where child predators are held accountable.
Donald Trump, who won’t even rule out pardoning Maxwell, is proving her right.
In memoriam of the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA
James Watson and Francis Crick
James Watson, the co-discoverer with Francis Crick of the double-helix structure of DNA, recently died at age 97. The Nobel Prize winner was no stranger to controversy. In his 2003 book DNA: The Secret to Life, Watson discusses how his advocacy for reprogenetic choice led to controversy in German media. He makes an earnest case for looking genetic realities in the face and using genetic enhancement motivated by love for future generations.
Below are some extracts from the book’s conclusion, entitled “Our Genes and Our Future.”1 Watson’s thoughts on genetic enhancement can profitably compared to those of CRISPR co-developer and fellow Nobel Prize-winner Jennifer Doudna. My bolding.
Only with the discovery of the double helix and the ensuing genetic revolution have we had grounds for thinking that the powers held traditionally to be the exclusive property of the gods might one day be ours. Life, we now know, is nothing but a vast array of coordinated chemical reactions. The “secret” to that coordination is the breathtakingly complex set of instructions inscribed, again chemically, in our DNA.
But we still have a long way to go on our journey toward a full understanding of how DNA does its work. In the study of human consciousness, for example, our knowledge is so rudimentary that arguments incorporating some element of vitalism [the idea that organisms are defined by non-materialist forces or qualities] persist, even as these notions have been debunked elsewhere. Nevertheless, both our understanding of life and our demonstrated ability to manipulate it are facts of our culture. Not surprisingly, then, Mary Shelley [author of Frankenstein] has many would-be successors: artists and scientists alike have been keen to explore the ramifications of our newfound genetic knowledge.
Many of these efforts are shallow and betray their creators’ ignorance of what is and is not biologically feasible. But one in particular stands out in my mind as raising important questions, and doing so in a stylish and compelling way. Andrew Niccols’s 1997 film Gattaca carries to the present limits of our imagination the implications of a society obsessed with genetic perfection. In a future world two types of humans exist—a genetically enhanced ruling class and an underclass that lives with the imperfect genetic endowments of today’s humans. Supersensitive DNA analyses ensure that the plum jobs go to the genetic elite while “in-valids” are discriminated against at every turn. Gattaca’s hero is the “in-valid” Vincent (Ethan Hawke), conceived in the heat of reckless passion by a couple in the back of a car. Vincent’s younger brother, Anton, is later properly engineered in the laboratory and so endowed with all the finest genetic attributes. As the two grow up, Vincent is reminded of his own inferiority every time he tries, fruitlessly, to best his little brother in swim races. Genetic discrimination eventually forces Vincent to accept a menial job as a porter with the Gattaca Corporation. …
Few, if any, of us would wish to imagine our descendants living under the sort of genetic tyranny suggested by Gattaca. Setting aside the question of whether the scenario foreseen is technologically feasible, we must address the central issue raised by the film: Does DNA knowledge make a genetic caste system inevitable? A world of congenital haves and have-nots? The most pessimistic commentators foresee an even worse scenario: Might we one day go so far as to breed a race of clones, condemned to servile lives mandated by their DNA? Rather than strive to fortify the weak, would we aim to make the descendants of the strong ever stronger? Most fundamentally, should we manipulate human genes at all? The answers to these questions depend very much on our views of human nature.
Today much of the public paranoia surrounding the dangers of human genetic manipulation is inspired by a legitimate recognition of our selfish side—that aspect of our nature that evolution has hardwired to promote our own survival, if necessary at the expense of others. Critics envision a world in which genetic knowledge would be used solely to widen the gap between the privileged (those best positioned to press genetics into their own service) and the downtrodden (those whom genetics can only put at greater disadvantage). But such a view recognizes only one side of our humanity. …
Disposed though we might be to competition, humans are also profoundly social. Compassion for others in need or distress is as much a genetic element of our nature as the tendency to smile when we’re happy. …
Even those who accept that the urge to improve the lot of others is part of human nature disagree on the best way to go about it. It is a perennial subject of social and political debate. The prevailing orthodoxy holds that the best way we can help our fellow citizens is by addressing problems with their nurture. Underfed, unloved, and uneducated human beings have diminished potential to lead productive lives. But as we have seen, nurture, while greatly influential, has its limits, which reveal themselves most dramatically in cases of profound genetic disadvantage. Even with the most perfectly devised nutrition and schooling, boys with severe fragile X disease will still never be able to take care of themselves. Nor will all the extra tutoring in the world ever grant naturally slow learners a chance to get to the head of the class. If, therefore, we are serious about improving education, we cannot in good conscience ultimately limit ourselves to seeking remedies in nurture. My suspicion, however, is that education policies are too often set by politicians to whom the glib slogan “leave no child behind” appeals precisely because it is so completely unobjectionable. But children will get left behind if we continue to insist that each one has the same potential for learning.
We do not as yet understand why some children learn faster than others, and I don’t know when we will. But if we consider how many commonplace biological insights, unimaginable fifty years ago, have been made possible through the genetic revolution, the question becomes pointless. The issue rather is this: Are we prepared to embrace the undeniably vast potential of genetics to improve the human condition, individually and collectively? Most immediate, would we want the guidance of genetic information to design learning best suited to our children’s individual needs? Would we in time want a pill that would allow fragile X boys to go to school with other children, or one that would allow naturally slow learners to keep pace in class with naturally fast ones? And what about the even more distant prospect of viable germ-line gene therapy? Having identified the relevant genes, would we want to exercise a future power to transform slow learners into fast ones before they are even born? We are not dealing in science fiction here: we can already give mice better memories. Is there a reason why our goal shouldn’t be to do the same for humans?
One wonders what our visceral response to such possibilities might be had human history never known the dark passage of the eugenics movement. Would we still shudder at the term “genetic enhancement”? The reality is that the idea of improving on the genes that nature has given us alarms people. When discussing our genes, we seem ready to commit what philosophers call the “naturalistic fallacy,” assuming that the way nature intended it is best. By centrally heating our homes and taking antibiotics when we have an infection, we carefully steer clear of the fallacy in our daily lives, but mentions of genetic improvement have us rushing to run the “nature knows best” flag up the mast. For this reason, I think that the acceptance of genetic enhancement will most likely come about through efforts to prevent disease. …
All over the world government regulations now forbid scientists from adding DNA to human germ cells. Support for these prohibitions comes from a variety of constituencies. Religious groups—who believe that to tamper with the human germ line is in effect to play God—account for much of the strong knee-jerk opposition among the general public. For their part, secular critics, as we have seen, fear a nightmarish social transformation such as that suggested in Gattaca—with natural human inequalities grotesquely amplified and any vestige of an egalitarian society erased. But though this premise makes for a good script, to me it seems no less fanciful than the notion that genetics will pave the way to Utopia. …
My view is that, despite the risks, we should give serious consideration to germ-line gene therapy. I only hope that the many biologists who share my opinion will stand tall in the debates to come and not be intimidated by the inevitable criticism. Some of us already know the pain of being tarred with the brush once reserved for eugenicists. But that is ultimately a small price to pay to redress genetic injustice. If such work be called eugenics, then I am a eugenicist.
Over my career since the discovery of the double helix, my awe at the majesty of what evolution has installed in our every cell has been rivaled only by anguish at the cruel arbitrariness of genetic disadvantage and defect, particularly as it blights the lives of children. In the past it was the remit of natural selection—a process that is at once marvelously efficient and woefully brutal—to eliminate those deleterious genetic mutations. Today, natural selection still often holds sway: a child born with Tay-Sachs who dies within a few years is—from a dispassionate biological perspective—a victim of selection against the Tay-Sachs mutation. But now, having identified many of those mutations that have caused so much misery over the years, it is in our power to sidestep natural selection. Surely, given some form of preemptive diagnosis, anyone would think twice before choosing to bring a child with Tay-Sachs into the world. The baby faces the prospect of three or four long years of suffering before death comes as a merciful release. And so if there is a paramount ethical issue attending the vast new genetic knowledge created by the Human Genome Project, in my view it is the slow pace at which what we now know is being deployed to diminish human suffering. Leaving aside the uncertainties of gene therapy, I find the lag in embracing even the most unambiguous benefits to be utterly unconscionable. That in our medically advanced society almost no women are screened for the fragile X mutation a full decade after its discovery can attest only to ignorance or intransigence. Any woman reading these words should realize that one of the important things she can do as a potential or actual parent is to gather information on the genetic dangers facing her unborn children—by looking for deleterious genes in her family line and her partner’s, or, directly, in the embryo of a child she has conceived. And let no one suggest that a woman is not entitled to this knowledge. Access to it is her right, as it is her right to act upon it. She is the one who will bear the immediate consequences.
Two years ago, my views on this subject received a very cold reception in Germany. The publication of my essay, “Ethical Implications of the Human Genome Project,” in the highly respected newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), provoked a storm of criticism. Perhaps this was the editors’ intent: Without my knowledge, let alone consent, the paper had given my essay a new title devised by the translator as “The Ethic of the Genome—Why We Should Not Leave the Future of the Human Race to God.” While I subscribe to no religion and make no secret of my secular views, I would never have framed my position as a provocation to those who do. A surprisingly hostile response came from a man of science, the president of the German Federal Chamber of Medical Doctors, who accused me of “following the logic of the Nazis who differentiate between a life worth living and a life not worth living.” A day later, an editorial entitled “Unethical Offer” appeared in the same paper that had published mine. The writer, Henning Ritter, argued with self-righteous conviction that in Germany the decision to end the lives of genetically damaged fetuses would never become a private matter. In fact, his grandstanding displayed a simple ignorance of the nation’s law; in Germany today, it is solely the right of a pregnant woman, upon receipt of medical advice, to decide whether to carry her fetus to term.
The more honorable critics were those who argued openly from personal beliefs, rather than exploiting the terrifying specter of the German past. The respected German president, Johannes Rau, countered my views with an assertion that “value and sense are not solely based on knowledge.” As a practicing Protestant, he finds truths in religious revelation while I, a scientist, depend only on observation and experimentation. I therefore must evaluate actions on the basis of my moral intuition. And I see only needless harm in denying women access to prenatal diagnosis until, as some would have it, cures exist for the defects in question. In a less measured comment, the Protestant theologian Dietmar Mieth called my essay the “Ethics of Horror,” taking issue with my assertion that greater knowledge will furnish humans better answers to ethical dilemmas. But the existence of a dilemma implies a choice to be made, and choice to my mind is better than no choice. A woman who learns that her fetus has Tay-Sachs now faces a dilemma about what to do, but at least she has a choice, where before she had none. Though I am sure that many German scientists agree with me, too many seem to be cowed by the political past and the religious present: except for my longtime valued friend Benno Müller-Hill, whose brave book on Nazi eugenics, Murderous Science (Tödliche Wissenschaft), still rankles the German academic establishment, no German scientist saw reason to rise to my defense.
I do not dispute the right of individuals to look to religion for a private moral compass, but I do object to the assumption of too many religious people that atheists live in a moral vacuum. Those of us who feel no need for a moral code written down in an ancient tome have, in my opinion, recourse to an innate moral intuition long ago shaped by natural selection promoting social cohesion in groups of our ancestors. …
With its direct contradiction of religious accounts of creation, evolution represents science’s most direct incursion into the religious domain and accordingly provokes the acute defensiveness that characterizes creationism. It could be that as genetic knowledge grows in centuries to come, with ever more individuals coming to understand themselves as products of random throws of the genetic dice—chance mixtures of their parents’ genes and a few equally accidental mutations—a new gnosis in fact much more ancient than today’s religions will come to be sanctified. Our DNA, the instruction book of human creation, may well come to rival religious scripture as the keeper of the truth.
I may not be religious, but I still see much in scripture that is profoundly true. In the first letter to the Corinthians, for example, Paul writes:
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
Paul has in my judgment proclaimed rightly the essence of our humanity. Love, that impulse which promotes our caring for one another, is what has permitted our survival and success on the planet. It is this impulse that I believe will safeguard our future as we venture into uncharted genetic territory. So fundamental is it to human nature that I am sure that the capacity to love is inscribed in our DNA—a secular Paul would say that love is the greatest gift of our genes to humanity. And if someday those particular genes too could be enhanced by our science, to defeat petty hatreds and violence, in what sense would our humanity be diminished?2
In addition to laying out a misleadingly dismal vision of our future within the film itself, the creators of Gattaca concocted a promotional tag line aimed at the deepest prejudices against genetic knowledge: “There is no gene for the human spirit.” It remains a dangerous blind spot in our society that so many wish this were so. If the truth revealed by DNA could be accepted without fear, we should not despair for those who follow us.
1 James Watson, DNA: The Secret of Life (Knopf, 2003), pp. 395-405.
2 The philosophers Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu have made a sustained case for this in the form of moral genetic enhancement: Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement (Oxford University Press, 2012).
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Civus Non Nequissimushttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngCivus Non Nequissimus2025-11-12 10:08:172025-11-12 10:08:17James Watson on “Gattaca,” Genetic Enhancement, and Love
FWIW, I suspect it’s indeed a tactical retreat because Shapiro realizes that neocons have lost the argument on immigration on the right, so they are moving on to their big issue: shilling for Israel.
Who does he want U.S. to invade now?
PeterBrimelow.com is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
At 1:50:20 on Meghan Kelly’s show, Ben Shapiro says “Tucker has been a wonderful advocate in the past, particularly on the immigration issue.”
“Particularly on the immigration issue”?
This is news to me, as Editor of the late lamented immigration patriot site, VDARE.com.
But as late as 2018 i.e. AT (After Trump), Ben Shapiro, on (needless to say), National Review, denounced me as “Peter Brimelow, creator of the white-supremacist site VDare.com.”
In other words, according to Shapiro at that point, criticizing America’s post-1965 immigration disaster was “white-supremacist.”
Remember that being branded a “white supremacist” then meant being utterly excluded from Main Stream Media debate.
(Needless to say, this was actually irrelevant to the question of whether I was an “Open White Nationalist.” I’ve always maintained I‘m a Civil Nationalist.
(But the Court, while admitting our point was “actionable,” absurdly decided that the New York Times’ website stealth-edit had made us whole—contrary to the paper’s stated policy on correcting errors in print).
My conclusion after this and other litigation experiences: the American judiciary is simply afraid to confront the oligarchs.
And there is no justice for anyone accused of “white nationalism.”
What is it? Where does he want the U.S. to invade next?
PeterBrimelow.com is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Peter Brimelowhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngPeter Brimelow2025-11-11 12:33:202025-11-12 06:28:42“Partcularly On The Immigration Issue”? Why Is Ben Shapiro Pretending To Be An Immigration Patriot?
Good to see TAC departing from gung ho support for Israel. This is from an Israeli human rights activist.
In reality, Israel already de facto annexed the West Bank decades ago. It is a one-state reality with a single sovereign—Israel, where Israeli citizens have full rights everywhere and Palestinians have fewer rights, if any at all, anywhere. Trump’s commitment to rejecting formal annexation does nothing to address the reality on the ground; but it gets even worse.
Israeli aggression against Palestinian communities all over the West Bank—sometimes, correctly, dubbed as pogroms—is now at an all-time peak, according to UN data. With almost total impunity, Israeli settler militias, often indistinguishable from the Israeli army, raid Palestinian communities while setting homes, cars, and fields on fire, attacking defenseless residents, all with the aim of taking over more land and pushing Palestinians towards the more populated enclaves of the West Bank known as Area A and Area B. Community after community is forced to flee, as Israel gradually ethnically cleanses the 60 percent of the West Bank known as Area C. Often framed as “settler violence” this reality should be understood for what it is: Israeli state violence.
The scope of this brutality is unprecedented, but the Trump administration has utterly reneged on even trying to halt this Israeli aggression. Contrary to Trump’s utterance that “Israel is not going to do anything with the West Bank,” he is in fact allowing it to do everything it desires there short of formal annexation.
Which raises the question: Why does the Trump administration allow Israel to violently reshape the West Bank while forcefully displacing Palestinians there, ignoring the ominous risk this presents for unchecked escalation leading to renewed regional destabilization?
The AmericanConservative: Trump promised that “Israel is not going to do anything with the West Bank,” but in fact he is allowing it to do everything it desires there short of formal annexation.
“Move surprisingly and break dogmas” is not the stated foreign policy doctrine of the Trump administration—or is it? On the issue of Israel–Palestine, walking away from outdated, failed American foreign policy dogmas is long overdue. To what extent—and to what effect—is the Trump administration breaking away from those past failures?
President Donald Trump has already accomplished (almost singlehandedly, it seems) an unexpected ceasefire in Gaza. In forcing an end to the war, he has not only saved precious lives, both Israeli and Palestinian, but also preempted further destabilization of the entire region. As the former senior adviser Jared Kushner recently described the president’s perspective, “He felt like the Israelis were getting a little bit out of control in what they were doing, and that it was time to be very strong and stop them from doing things that he felt were not in their long-term interests.” Clearly, what Kushner is discussing here are American long-term interests that were being jeopardized by “out-of-control” Israeli actions.
Further, after initially floating the unconscionable idea of Gaza’s ethnic cleansing, the president now seems committed to its rebuilding: “No one will be forced to leave Gaza … We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.” This firmly denies Israeli aspirations not only to push Palestinians out of the Strip but also to settle there.
Further still, Trump is ushering in the possibility of de facto international protection for Palestinians in Gaza—an idea so loathed by Israel, it would be unimaginable if not for Trump. From an American command post quickly established in the Israeli town of Kiryat Gat, the Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) is not quite like anything seen before in Israel–Palestine. For sure, it could end up as a glitzy copy/paste of Israel’s crude Coordinator of the Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), thus merely substituting one form of Palestinian subjugation with another. But it may develop into something entirely different: imposing unprecedented restrictions on Israeli military attacks in Gaza; replacing Israel’s decades-long blockade on Gaza with something humane; and bringing forward international forces never before seen in the Gaza Strip. In a reality in which one side—Israel—is so overwhelmingly stronger than the other—the Palestinians—introducing an effective international component was long seen as an essential step. For precisely this reason, Israel has always opposed “internationalizing the conflict.” Trump may very well cut right through that Israeli opposition.
Still, barely a month into the ceasefire, perhaps better branded as Pax Trumpiana, one must write with caution. The reality on the ground remains dire and unstable; just during this nascent ceasefire, Israel has killed some 240 Palestinians in Gaza, bringing the war’s death toll to over 69,000. More than half of the Gaza Strip remains occupied by Israel, a reality that allows it to continue destroying whatever remains in the areas under its control while preventing Palestinians from even returning to the ruins of their homes and towns. Much of Gaza—81 percent of buildings according to the UN—remains destroyed or damaged, while hundreds of thousands remain homeless, displaced, or both.
There is no way around these terrible facts. Nor should it be forgotten that much of this catastrophe was accomplished through Israeli policies greenlighted by Washington under Trump, Biden, and presidents before them, and implemented with American weapons and funding.
None of these facts can or should be forgotten. But it should also not be missed that America might just have reached the conclusion that Israel’s war in Gaza, metastasizing all over the Middle East through “out-of-control” Israeli military actions, has become incompatible with American national security interests in the region, and that the Trump administration is now moving—surprisingly, effectively, and free of at least some of the past’s failed dogmas—in a new direction.
Which must bring us from half-occupied Gaza to the fully occupied West Bank.
Clearly, the Trump administration is already looking beyond the Strip. Not long into the ceasefire, the president stated in the clearest of terms that Israel’s long-sought annexation of the West Bank “won’t happen”. But in stating so Trump has so far limited himself to only forbidding de jure annexation while utterly ignoring the facts on the ground, both the reality that has taken shape over decades since 1967 as well as the developments unfolding under his watch.
In reality, Israel already de facto annexed the West Bank decades ago. It is a one-state reality with a single sovereign—Israel, where Israeli citizens have full rights everywhere and Palestinians have fewer rights, if any at all, anywhere. Trump’s commitment to rejecting formal annexation does nothing to address the reality on the ground; but it gets even worse.
Israeli aggression against Palestinian communities all over the West Bank—sometimes, correctly, dubbed as pogroms—is now at an all-time peak, according to UN data. With almost total impunity, Israeli settler militias, often indistinguishable from the Israeli army, raid Palestinian communities while setting homes, cars, and fields on fire, attacking defenseless residents, all with the aim of taking over more land and pushing Palestinians towards the more populated enclaves of the West Bank known as Area A and Area B. Community after community is forced to flee, as Israel gradually ethnically cleanses the 60 percent of the West Bank known as Area C. Often framed as “settler violence” this reality should be understood for what it is: Israeli state violence.
The scope of this brutality is unprecedented, but the Trump administration has utterly reneged on even trying to halt this Israeli aggression. Contrary to Trump’s utterance that “Israel is not going to do anything with the West Bank,” he is in fact allowing it to do everything it desires there short of formal annexation.
Which raises the question: Why does the Trump administration allow Israel to violently reshape the West Bank while forcefully displacing Palestinians there, ignoring the ominous risk this presents for unchecked escalation leading to renewed regional destabilization?
If the Trump administration is serious about regional stability, it cannot continue to ignore the quite literal fires Israel is lighting all across the West Bank. One should also not miss the fact that there are those in Israel who consider such an outcome—a violent outbreak in the West Bank—a desirable prospect. In their minds, such an event may bring the possibility of displacing Palestinians not from one place to another within the West Bank, but to push Palestinians eastwards of the Jordan River into Jordan itself. Now that Trump has made it clear that the parallel idea—to push Palestinians southwards from the Gaza Strip into Egypt —is off the table, the motivation for such action in the West Bank hasn’t declined. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Israel is still led by the same extremist government quite capable of acting “out of control”. Yet the support for permanent Israeli control over the entirety of the West Bank, without giving any rights to the millions of Palestinians there, is much broader than Israel’s current ruling coalition; it is a broad Israeli consensus. Broad as it may be, this consensus isn’t only cruel and inhumane, but also seeks to enshrine an inherently unjust and unstable reality—one bound to implode, with terrible consequences. It is a future foreseen, and it must be forestalled. Trump has already demonstrated in Gaza his ability to (belatedly) move fast and break dogmas. He should now do so in the West Bank as well.
I am neither an American nor a conservative. I’m an Israeli citizen advocating, from a human rights perspective, for a just future for all people, Israeli and Palestinian, living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. As such, I deal with the world as it is, not as I wish it were. I do not pretend to represent American interests or to understand them better than Americans do. I wrote this piece because of the shameful reality of violent Palestinian subjugation in the West Bank—and because I believe that there is a serious foreign policy argument to be made for the Trump administration to extend its novel approach to the region beyond Gaza. I hope someone is listening; otherwise we’re simply counting backwards not just towards the next Palestinian home being torched, but towards the next regional war.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Kevin MacDonaldhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngKevin MacDonald2025-11-11 07:33:442025-11-11 07:33:44Trump Must Look Beyond Gaza to the West Bank
I’ve spent the last 10 days in London, a city I love. History, architecture, museums, tea, the accent — it is perfection. But the Mother Country is slightly retarded on the meaning of the rule of law.
I appeared at an event on Monday evening hosted by The Spectator magazine to debate the question, “Is America Great Again?” Me: YES! Peter Hitchens: No. (As an aside, I won!) The “go-to” line of my debate opponents — that is, Hitchens and the audience — was, But what about the rule of law?
President Trump is blowing up Venezuelan boats. He’s deploying the National Guard to our cities. He’s allowing immigration officers to beat up, arrest, detain and deport illegal aliens. All this, they say, violates the rule of law, morality, decency and the very foundation of Anglo-Saxon order.
Which can only mean Londoners read The New York Times, and not ironically.
First, the poor “fishermen.” The president is the “commander in chief” of the military, charged with defending our country from foreign attack and not, for example, ensuring the peace in Mogadishu, Ukraine, the Middle East, the Balkans, etc. etc. etc. As noble as those goals may be, that’s not what Americans are paying taxes for and it’s not the president’s job.
The poor fishermen are drug-runners. Drugs pouring into our country from narco-terrorist states and drug cartels kill about 100,000 Americans every year. That’s more than were killed in the entire Korean War and Vietnam War combined. For comparison, Islamic terrorists have killed fewer than 5,000 people on U.S. soil in the past 25 years.
We finally have a president deploying our military to save American lives, and Londoners seem to imagine that Trump has stomped all over the rule of law. We wouldn’t hear a note of dissension if only he were using our troops to feed starving Somalians or bomb Yugoslavia.
The Britons were particularly exercised that, by firing on Venezuelan narco-terrorists in our own hemisphere, Trump had violated the War Powers Act of 1973 — the flaw of which should be immediately apparent from the words “of 1973.” Passed by the post-Watergate Congress, during what is known as “the most destructive period in American history,” the law demands that presidents get congressional approval before deploying troops for more than 60 days.
(How was this a response to Watergate? Evidently, if only President Johnson hadn’t gotten us involved in a ground war in Asia, there never would have been a break-in at Democratic headquarters in the Watergate hotel.)
The law is obviously unconstitutional — again, the president is the commander in chief — and every president has ignored it, including President Obama, who didn’t get approval from Congress when bombing Libya for most of 2011, resulting in Moammar Gadhafi’s assassination in late October. Hillary Clinton, the war’s architect (despite not being the commander in chief, but instead secretary of state), exulted, “We came. We saw. He died.”
You’d think that this boneheaded use of the U.S. military would be imprinted on every Briton’s psyche, inasmuch as it did absolutely nothing for our country but “enriched” the U.K. to the tune of about 400,000 Africans, who hopped on boats to Europe the moment Gadhafi was no longer there to stop them.
Nope. Bomb foreigners pointlessly — that’s cool. Use the military to protect American lives, and it’s the end of the rule of law.
As for the National Guard deployments to war-torn inner cities, the very reason we have a Constitution, and not a loosely defined Articles of Confederation, is because of Shays’ Rebellion in 1787, when 4,000 soldiers marched on an armory in Massachusetts, intending to seize weapons and overthrow the government.
A series of similar uprisings quickly made clear that the articles’ weak federal government was incapable of suppressing riots. That’s when the Founding Fathers headed to Philadelphia and produced a Constitution with a strong executive in command of federal troops.
Of course, Shays’ Rebellion was a day at the beach compared to the violent crime roiling our major cities today. In 2020, disaffected inner-city youth and entitled whites erupted in a maelstrom of violence in a poignant tribute to the late fentanyl addict George Floyd. Observing the turmoil, Sen. Tom Cotton wrote a Times op-ed urging Trump to send the military to restore order.
Trump ignored him, perhaps impressed by the Times’ 1-million-word disclaimer disavowing the opinion piece they’d just published, having momentarily forgotten that they’re The New York Times and support violent criminals. Instead, the president sat in bed eating cheeseburgers and tweeting, “LAW AND ORDER!”
Now, five years later, he’s finally giving us law and order (which is his job under the Constitution) using the National Guard (of which he’s the commander in chief under the Constitution). But Londoners somehow see this as a dire threat to the rule of law.
Speaking of the rule of law, illegal immigrants are breaking it. As luck would have it, it’s the president’s job to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” But, for the past 50 years, it never dawned on a single president that “the laws” include immigration laws. Until now.
District court judges keep issuing opinions saying the president can’t — among other things — turn away illegals at the border, end the temporary protected status of certain immigrants, expedite deportations, detain illegals subject to deportation and so on. But there’s nothing in the Constitution or in federal law to suggest that the judiciary’s interpretation (don’t enforce the law) is superior to Trump’s (enforce the law).
In fact, the Constitution suggests exactly the opposite.
The entirety of the executive branch resides in this one man’s hands, whereas judges are merely constituent parts of a co-equal branch. Both are required to interpret laws — the president to take care that they be faithfully executed, and judges to decide cases and controversies.
A president is no more required to accept a court’s interpretation of the law than courts are to accept the president’s interpretation. The Supreme Court wins, but that’s only by custom, not the law.
So far, Trump’s interpretation has almost always been correct, and the district courts wrong, according to the high court. Remember his unconstitutional “Muslim ban”? (At least I was assured it was unconstitutional by The New York Times.)
Two years later, the Supreme Court ruled: OF COURSE the president has the authority to exclude any foreigners, at all, in the “public interest,” and the courts have no authority to second-guess him.
I’d put all this in a tweet, but with these prim British, so punctilious about the rule of law, I might end up in jail. Unless I’m a Pakistani, in which case I could gang-rape little English girls without risking arrest because the police don’t want to appear “racist.” Ah well, it’s the Mother Country. We must learn from them about the sacred rule of law.
COPYRIGHT 2025 ANN COULTER
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Ann Coulterhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngAnn Coulter2025-11-10 10:52:082025-11-10 10:53:54Don’t Let the Brits Read The New York Times
There is a scene in Annie Hall where Alvy Singer, played by Woody Allen, recounts to his friend instances of supposed anti-Semitism against him: ‘You know, I was having lunch with some guys from NBC… So I said, “uh, did you eat or what?”, and Tom Christie said, “No, didchoo?”. Not did you – didchoo eat. No, not did you eat, but Jew eat. Jew. You get it? Jew eat?’ Among other examples, Singer also claims that a music-shop assistant is being anti-Semitic by telling him there’s a sale on Wagner records. His friend, Rob, dismisses his concerns as paranoia.
This will raise a smile with most Jews. Our paranoia about anti-Semitism can be a source of great amusement within our community. When I first started out as a news reporter, at the Jewish Chronicle, we would compete to see who could take a newsdesk call with the most ridiculous example of imagined Jew hate. One of mine was a call from a woman who wanted to report a big clothes retailer for selling striped pyjamas with a star on them.
Unfortunately, the laughter has long since stopped. Over the past few weeks in particular – that is, since the Manchester synagogue attack – I feel like I’m living inside Singer’s head. Except that I’m not paranoid, it’s now just daily life for a Jew living in Britain today.
It is now over a month since Jihad Al-Shamie attacked Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester on Yom Kippur, leaving two Jewish men dead and more injured. And while Britain’s Jewish community is still reeling from what happened on that terrible day, the knocks just keep coming.
Mere hours after Al-Shamie’s act of Jew hatred, pro-Palestine protesters couldn’t help themselves. Instead of cancelling or even just postponing their pre-planned anti-Israel protests scheduled for later that day, they pressed ahead. They gathered in major UK cities, including Manchester itself. At a protest outside Downing Street in London, one protester was filmed saying, ‘I don’t give a fuck about the Jewish community right now’. No kidding.
In Brighton, another set of protesters chanted ‘Zionism is a crime’, while in Edinburgh, one activist held up a sign that read, ‘Punch your local Zionist’. These were protests against the very existence of the Jewish State, and they were staged on the same day a man called Jihad tried to kill as many Jews as possible.
There was no let up in the days that followed. On the Saturday after the synagogue attack, the streets of London were once again filled with what has become a routine celebration of anti-Israel hate. Each new march brings its own panoply of worrying indicators that Britain has lost its streets to the Islamo-leftist mob, from anti-Semitic placards resurrecting the blood libel to comparisons of Israelis to Nazis to the shameless promotion of Hamas and Hezbollah.
The marches are old hat for us now. And the Metropolitan Police have made it pretty clear that the Jewish community can’t rely on much help from them. Indeed, on one Saturday in April last year, Gideon Falter, the chief executive of Campaign Against Antisemitism, was walking through central London on his way home from synagogue. While passing near a pro-Palestine march, he caught the attention of the police. They had noticed he was wearing a kippah and carrying a small bag with a Star of David on it. A police officer pulled Falter aside on account of him being ‘quite openly Jewish’ and said: ‘This is a pro-Palestinian march. I am not accusing you of anything, but I am worried about the reaction to your presence.’
Just two weeks after the Manchester synagogue attack, another story came to light that reinforced the sense that the British authorities see Jews as the problem. In August, a Jewish lawyer had been arrested during a protest outside the Israeli embassy in Kensington. Although, officially, he was detained under the Public Order Act for allegedly breaching the agreed conditions of a protest, the police’s line of questioning suggests his Jewishness was the real issue. Specifically, police said the fact that he was wearing a small Star of David necklace – just two centimetres in diameter – had ‘antagonised’ pro-Palestine protesters.
The so-called pro-Palestine marches are only the half of it. The rot of anti-Semitism is infecting every aspect of public life. There were troubling scenes at Villa Park football stadium just this week, ahead of Aston Villa’s Europa League fixture against Israeli team Maccabi Tel Aviv. The local Safety Advisory Group’s decision to ban Maccabi fans from attending effectively turned the area around the ground into a battleground. The Jews and their allies opposing the ban were forced to stand in a caged-off basketball court for their own protection while hundreds of pro-Palestine activists staged an ugly protest nearby, calling Israelis ‘baby killers’ and chanting ‘Death, death to the IDF’. Prior to the match, the activists stuck up posters around the ground featuring the slogan, ‘If you see a Zionist, call the anti-terror hotline’. I wonder why they even bothered with the word ‘Zionist’.
The authorities initially said they imposed the ban for vague ‘safety’ reasons, although they have since claimed it was due to the ‘significant levels of hooliganism’ among the Maccabi fan base. If they’re thinking of the violent unrest in Amsterdam in November 2024, when Maccabi played Ajax, they should probably take a look at the recent trial of those involved that night. It showed that groups of mostly Arab men went on a pre-planned ‘Jew hunt’ of the Israeli football fans.
The decision to ban Maccabi supporters followed a campaign by various anti-Israel groups to cancel the match or ban Israeli fans from attending. The campaign was supported by pro-Palestine local councillors and local independent MP Ayoub Khan, who had previously cast doubt on the atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October. Attempts by the government to intervene proved fruitless, and the Israeli football club announced that it would not issue any tickets to away fans even if the decision was reversed due to safety fears. As former 7 October hostage and Maccabi Tel Aviv fan Emily Damari said, it’s akin to ‘putting a big sign on the outside of a stadium saying “no Jews allowed”’.
The situation on university campuses is equally dire. At City St George’s, University of London, an Israeli economics professor, Michael Ben-Gad, has become the target of a campaign of harassment by a group of pro-Palestine students. Taking issue with the fact that Ben-Gad served in the IDF under his mandatory service in the 1980s, they have handed out flyers with the professor’s photo displayed against a blood-stained background branding him a ‘terrorist’. Masked protesters stormed his lecture, chanting ‘From the river to the sea’, and, according to Ben-Gad, one said he should be beheaded.
In a refreshing turn of events, the university has actually stood by Ben-Gad and 1,600 people including lecturers have signed an open letter in support of him in the Observer. However, the sad truth is that campus life has been made extremely difficult for Jewish students and academics across the UK. Anti-Semitic incidents on campus have risen by 117 per cent since October 2023 and Jewish students frequently report a hostile environment on campus.
For a small snapshot of the callous and ugly anti-Israel hysteria now prevalent at UK universities, look no further than what happened on 7 October this year, on the second anniversary of the Hamas pogrom. In an attempt to erase the memory of the hundreds of Israelis who were raped and slaughtered that day, pro-Palestine student groups staged anti-Israel protests – or worse, celebrated Hamas’s pogrom as a form of ‘resistance’. At my own alma mater, the University of Liverpool, there were even plans for a ‘Palestine bake sale’, complete with the ominous-sounding tagline, ‘It’s time for dessert’. Following pushback, the event was postponed by the students’ union.
Most of what I have described above has all happened in the five weeks since the murderous Yom Kippur attack. But this tidal wave of anti-Semitism has been washing over British public life ever since the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023.
It depresses me to write this, but I don’t think it is an understatement to say that Jews are facing a concerted anti-Semitic campaign that aims to push us out of public life – or at the very least, make us feel deeply uncomfortable.
There are now streets we must avoid at the weekend, football matches it is no longer safe to attend. Pupils at Jewish schools are now told to hide the school’s emblem on their uniforms to avoid harassment. The often celebrity-led campaigns to exclude Israelis from academia, culture and sport have picked up pace. Even in the National Health Service, there are growing concerns over anti-Semitism among medical staff.
In the media, our own national broadcaster, the BBC, still won’t call Hamas ‘terrorists’ and happily broadcast the threat to kill Jews, ‘Death, death to the IDF’, during its coverage of the Glastonbury festival. Just last month, renowned interviewer Louis Theroux put out his latest podcast, a lovely cosy chat with the creator of the ‘Death to the IDF’ chant, punk-rapper Bobby Vylan. During the podcast, Theroux and Vylan revealed they both essentially equate Zionism with white supremacy. As Theroux put it, ‘Jewish identity in the Jewish community, as expressed in Israel, has become almost like an acceptable, quote, unquote, way of understanding ethno-nationalism’.
Hearing someone as mainstream as Theroux not only nod along, but also seemingly agree with such an obnoxious idea is a powerful reminder of just how far the constant demonisation of Israel has gone.
The hatred among our cultural and political elites towards the Jewish State, the determination to prioritise the war in Gaza over all other conflicts, has unsurprisingly – albeit, in some cases, unintentionally – led to the demonisation of Jewish people. The line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism has all but disappeared. That is why the British Jewish community was not surprised by the Manchester synagogue attack, carried out in the name of the Islamic State. We knew something like that was inevitable.
We Jews now live with the constant hum of anti-Semitism as the background noise to our lives – something I would have considered unthinkable when I was growing up, rarely fearful of being Jewish. We can still go about our day-to-day business, and nowhere is expressly verboten, but something has changed. It may be imperceptible to our non-Jewish friends, but we now change our behaviour in myriad, tiny ways. The internal Alvy Singer voice is always piping up, and now we are listening. My husband and I moved to our new house two years ago, but it remains without a mezuzah (a religious parchment in a small ornamental case hung on a door post) – because we worry about indicating that Jews live there. The cheder (Sunday religion school) where I bring my children runs armed-attacker drills, and after Yom Kippur our rabbi had to explain to children as young as four that there had been an attack on a synagogue.
Then there is the constant internal monologue: ‘I’m wearing my Star of David today – did I bring a scarf, lest I inadvertently “antagonise” someone? Which of my friends can I speak honestly and openly to about Israel? How long will it be before my son encounters anti-Semitism at school?’
And where can we go to be free of this constant attempt to break our spirit and undermine our Jewishness? Well, we thought we could take shelter at our communal centres – but even that comfort has been denied to us since the Manchester synagogue attack.
Such is the success of this relentless campaign of anti-Semitism, that a community once so confident and well-integrated is now being ‘Othered’ once again. We question ourselves, we look over our shoulders, and we wonder how long it will be before the rest of the country realises that this is no Woody Allen-esque neurosis: anti-Semitism has become our lived reality.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Kevin MacDonaldhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngKevin MacDonald2025-11-09 07:35:352025-11-09 07:35:35Problems in the Jewish-created multicultural UK utopia: Why Britain’s Jews no longer feel at home
Mainstream historian Jim Holland and Libertarian Institute editor Keith Knight clashed over one of history’s most sacred narratives — the justification for America’s entry into World War II. Moderated by Mario Nawfal, the discussion cut through decades of conventional wisdom to ask uncomfortable questions like whether Roosevelt’s administration provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor or whether Winston Churchill ought to be lionized as a great hero.
Did the war, which killed over 70 million people, actually preserve “the west” and could the death have been avoided by diplomatic means? Take a look at the highlights below, but we encourage listening to the full debate so you can decide whether the “good war” was truly good.
“Provoked Into War”: Knight’s Case Against The Pearl Harbor Narrative
“The attack on Hawaii… was intentionally provoked,” argued Knight, “so Roosevelt could engage in diversionary foreign policy after his New Deal led to the double-dip recession of 1937.”
He cited Navy Captain Arthur McCollum’s October 7, 1940 memo outlining “eight ways the United States can provoke Japan,” ending with the line: “If by this means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.”
“Roosevelt supported the policy of provoking the Axis powers,” Knight continued, pointing to a New York Times article from January 2, 1972, “War Entry Plans Laid to Roosevelt,” describing Roosevelt and Churchill’s 1941 meeting. Churchill admitted Roosevelt “would wage war, but not declare it… everything was to be done to force an incident.”
Knight added: “On November 25, 1941, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary, ‘The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.’”
“War with Japan was not inevitable,” he said, “but an intentional policy pursued by the Roosevelt administration.”
Citing Robert McNamara’s The Fog of War, Knight quoted: “Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional.”McNamara recalled, “In that single night, we burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo.”
Knight concluded, “The unconditional surrender of Japan destroyed America’s bulwark against Mao’s China and opened power vacuums in Korea and Vietnam—leading to millions of deaths and communist victories in both.”
Pearl Harbor, he said, “was not the price of peace—it was the product of provocation.”
Conscription: Is It Moral?
To the Libertarian Knight, compulsory military service is outright immoral. “Conscription is an indicator that the people you’re claiming to represent don’t actually think something is worth fighting for.”
Holland pushed back, arguing that, during WWII, while popular opposition to war was strong, “there is a balance to strike.” “If you give too much fuel to this bully [Hitler], he’s only going to get stronger,” he said. “There’s a point where the political metric is that you’ve got to come and stand up to this.”
“Conscription comes in for the first time ever in peacetime in March 1939. Chamberlain, who is the prime minister—not Churchill—is really nervous about suggesting conscription, and there is not a public outcry at all.” Instead, Holland said, “There is an acceptance amongst the British public that this is something that needs to happen.”
“The United States goes from very, very strongly isolationist to more and more in favor of massive rearming in the summer of 1940,” Holland noted. “When conscription comes in… there’s barely a flutter of eyelids.”
While acknowledging Knight’s moral ideal, Holland insisted that liberty itself was on the line. “The whole point about the Second World War,” he said, “is that democratic nations are standing up against authoritarianism and the taking away of personal freedoms. That’s the whole point of Nazism… the state runs everything… personal freedoms are taken away.”
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Kevin MacDonaldhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngKevin MacDonald2025-11-08 07:42:302025-11-08 07:42:30“All Wars Are Based On Lies”; Renowned WWII Historian Faces Official Narrative Assault
We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.
Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.
Essential Website Cookies
These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.
Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.
We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.
We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.
Other external services
We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.
Google Webfont Settings:
Google Map Settings:
Google reCaptcha Settings:
Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:
Privacy Policy
You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.
