France Promotes Alfred Dreyfus to Brigadier-General

After wrongful treason conviction 130 years ago, France finally promotes Jewish officer Alfred Dreyfus

French President Emmanuel Macron and Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu signed the motion following a unanimous vote by the lower house of parliament in July.

France officially promoted Capt. Alfred Dreyfus, the Jewish officer in the army who was falsely convicted of treason more than a century ago, to the rank of brigadier-general on Monday. French President Emmanuel Macron and Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu signed the motion following a unanimous vote by the lower house of parliament in July.

The Dreyfus Affair, which erupted in 1894, became one of France’s most divisive political scandals. Dreyfus, a French Jewish artillery officer, was wrongfully accused of passing military secrets to Germany, despite there being no evidence against him.

He was arrested, court-martialed, and imprisoned, igniting a bitter national debate that pitted supporters of justice and truth against rising waves of antisemitism. Yael Perl Ruiz, the great-granddaughter of Alfred Dreyfus, told The Jerusalem Post in October of last year that the anti-Dreyfusards (as they were called) only believed in Dreyfus’s guilt because he was Jewish and, therefore, for them, he was the obvious traitor.

“Dreyfus’s only fault was to be born Jewish, and as such he was the ideal traitor for the antisemites of the army and the antisemitic nationalist leagues,” she said.

The new law seeks to symbolically correct what Macron has described as a historic “injustice.”

Dreyfus, 1894

National day of commemoration for Alfred Dreyfus

In July, Macron also declared July 12 to be France’s national day of commemoration for Dreyfus. The date marks the anniversary of his exoneration in 1906, a full 12 years after his ordeal began.

The decision, Macron said at the time, honors “the victory of justice and truth against hatred and antisemitism.”

He stressed the importance of recognizing, preserving, and nurturing the “vital spirit of Dreyfusism.”

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-874380

In 1894, Dreyfus fell victim to a judicial conspiracy that eventually sparked a major political crisis in the French Third Republic when he was wrongfully accused and convicted of being a German spy.

Dreyfus was arrested, cashiered from the French army and imprisoned on Devil's Island in French Guiana. 

On 5 January 1895, the ceremony of degradation took place in the Morlan Court of the Military School in Paris. While the drums rolled, Dreyfus was accompanied by four artillery officers, who brought him before an officer of the state who read the judgment. A Republican Guard adjutant tore off his badges, thin strips of gold, his stripes, cuffs and sleeves of his jacket. As he was paraded throughout the streets, the crowd chanted "Death to Judas, death to the Jew." Witnesses report the dignity of Dreyfus, who continued to maintain his innocence while raising his arms: "Innocent, Innocent! Long live France! Long live the army". The Adjutant broke his sword on his knee and then the condemned Dreyfus was marched at a slow pace in front of his former companions.

Eventually, evidence emerged showing that Dreyfus was innocent and the true culprit was fellow officer Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy.

Dreyfus spent five years imprisoned on Devil's Island in very harsh conditions.

Dreyfus's hut on Devil's Island, sometimes chained to the bed

In 1896, evidence came to light—primarily through the investigations of Lieutenant Colonel Georges Picquart, head of counter-espionage—that identified the real culprit as a French Army major named Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy. High-ranking military officials suppressed the new evidence, and a military court unanimously acquitted Esterhazy after a trial lasting only two days. The Army laid additional charges against Dreyfus, based on forged documents. Subsequently, writer Émile Zola's open letter "J'Accuse...!" in the newspaper L'Aurore stoked a growing movement of political support for Dreyfus, putting pressure on the government to reopen the case.

In 1899, Dreyfus was returned to France for another trial.

The new trial resulted in another conviction and a 10-year sentence, but Dreyfus was pardoned and released. In 1906, Dreyfus was exonerated. After being reinstated as a major in the French Army, he served during the whole of World War I, ending his service with the rank of lieutenant colonel. He died in 1935.

Tons more info in Wiki, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair

Dreyfus (2nd from right) being rehabilitated in 1906

Tariffs as a Macroeconomic Tool

Tariffs as a Macro Economic Management Tool

Trade Policy Is the New Monetary Policy

The new San Francisco Fed paper on tariffs that we’ve been discussing this week opens the door for using customs duties in a way that the economics profession has almost never considered: as a macroeconomic policy tool.

Over 150 years of history in the U.S., U.K., and France, Régis Barnichon and Aayush Singh find that a tariff hike raises unemployment and lowers inflation. In other words, tariffs work the way we think tax hikes and monetary policy work. Which means we should start to think of them as part of the toolkit for keeping the U.S. economy from going awry.

What’s more, it means we should rethink how tariffs are managed by the government. If tariffs reliably move inflation and unemployment, then they should be data-dependent, dynamic, and discretionary. And that implies that tariffs should sit primarily in the hands of the executive.

The Tariff Tool Kit

Start from the San Francisco Fed’s bare facts. A sizable tariff hike historically raises unemployment and lowers inflation, across multiple countries and regimes. That alone tells you two things. First, tariffs are not just “sectoral distortions” off in relative-price land. They show up in aggregate variables in a consistent way. Second, they have the same sign pattern as monetary or fiscal tightening: prices cool, joblessness ticks up.

If you saw the same impulse responses after a rate hike, nobody would say, “Rates are immoral and must never change.” You’d say, “Okay, rates are a macro instrument. The question is how to use them.”

Tariffs should be treated the same way. Not as a taboo, not as an identity statement about whether you’re a free trader, but as one more knob that moves inflation and employment. Once you see them that way, three design principles follow naturally.

Tariffs Should Be Data-Dependent

If tariffs have macro effects, they shouldn’t be frozen into a 20-year schedule negotiated by trade lawyers. They should respond to the state of the economy.

Barnichon and Singh’s estimates imply a simple, almost Taylor-rule logic: When unemployment is very low and inflation is high, tariffs behave like a disinflationary tool with only a modest employment cost. When unemployment is high and inflation is soft, higher tariffs are counterproductive—they push in the same direction as the slump.

So, from the point of view of workers who both earn wages and buy goods, a simple rule of thumb emerges: If unemployment is low and inflation is high, tariffs are too low.

If unemployment is high and inflation is low, tariffs are too high.

That is exactly what “data-dependent” means. You don’t fix the tariff schedule in Geneva and walk away. You look at unemployment and inflation and adjust tariff policy to the state of the cycle.

We let the Fed move rates meeting by meeting. Why should tariffs be locked in stone regardless of whether the economy is booming or in a slump?

Tariffs Should Be Dynamic

The paper’s other important contribution is historical: tariff changes over 150 years are not tightly tied to the business cycle. Different parties raised and cut tariffs for political reasons at all points in the cycle. In other words, the world accidentally ran a lot of tariff experiments at random times. That’s what lets the authors estimate causal effects in the first place.

The lesson is not “never touch tariffs again.” The lesson is: stop doing this accidentally.

If tariffs move inflation and unemployment, they should be moved on purpose, and more often. Raise tariffs when the labor market is extremely tight and prices are running hot. Cut tariffs when unemployment is elevated and you need all the demand and hiring you can get.

Dynamic tariffs are not some radical innovation. We already adjust interest rates every six weeks, regulations in response to crises, energy policies after price shocks. We just pretend tariffs are sacred and must be set once per trade agreement and then treated as permanent. The SF Fed paper is a giant flashing sign saying, “Tariffs are macro-relevant. Stop pretending they’re static.”

Tariffs Should Be Discretionary

Once you say “tariffs should respond to current data,” you’re also saying: Tariff policy needs discretion, not just rules.

You cannot hard-code into statute: “If unemployment is below four percent and CPI is above three percent, raise the average tariff by X.” Real-world shocks are messy. You need judgment about how broad the tariffs should be, which countries and sectors are involved, and how tariffs interact with immigration, tax, and monetary policy.
That kind of real-time, cross-cutting judgment is exactly what we elect a president to exercise.

Congress is not built to do this. Legislating tariffs is slow, infrequent, and larded with logrolling and parochial interests. International agreements are even worse as macro tools—they lock the U.S. into multi-year schedules negotiated under totally different economic conditions.

If tariffs are going to be data-dependent (responsive to unemployment and inflation), dynamic (adjusted as conditions change), and discretionary (used with judgment alongside rates, taxes, and immigration), then they almost by definition have to be controlled by the executive branch—subject to statutes and oversight, but with real day-to-day authority in the White House.

In practice, that means making peace with something like what Trump has already done de facto: broad delegated authority over tariffs under existing laws, used in response to perceived macro and geopolitical conditions, rather than as a once-a-generation tweak to the WTO schedule.

The Fed and Tariffs Should Work Together

If tariffs reliably lower inflation and raise unemployment, they are not competitors to monetary policy—they are inputs to the Fed’s reaction function.

A sensible division of labor would look like this: The president uses tariffs (and immigration and tax policy) to shape the structure of production and the distribution of gains. The Fed sets interest rates using tariffs as data. If the White House has just imposed a disinflationary, growth-dampening tariff shock, the Fed should lean a bit easier, not tighter.

But that only works if we stop pretending tariffs are “just about trade,” and we stop pretending the sign is unknown. The San Francisco Fed has told us: tariffs, historically, are disinflationary.

Once you know that, the only rational response is to treat tariffs as part of the macro toolkit and put them where real-time, data-dependent, discretionary tools belong: under the control of the executive, guided by economic conditions, not locked away in a museum case labeled “Smoot-Hawley—Never Touch.”

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2025/11/19/breitbart-business-digest-tariffs-as-a-macro-economic-management-tool/

North Korea Executes "Big Shots" For Operating A Successful Business

North Korea executes 'big shot' couple who became 'arrogant' after the success of their business, accusing them of being 'anti-republic'

North Korea has executed a 'big shot' couple accused of being arrogant and anti-republic after the success of their business. 

Hundreds of people, including children, are said to have been forced to watch as a firing squad shot them dead in an open space in Pyongyang. 

The pair, in their 50s, ran a private operation that sold, repaired, and rented electric bicycles, battery-powered motorcycle parts, and ordinary bikes. 

Although they were formally registered with the Central Committee of the General Federation of Trade Unions in Sadong District, reports say they made significant profits on the side and became known as 'big shots'. 

Some residents held resentment toward them because of high wholesale prices, complaints about quality and what locals described as arrogant behaviour.

According to Daily NK, authorities accused them of violating the Rejection of Reactionary Thought and Culture Act. They were also alleged to have worked with an external organisation to illegally move foreign currency and spread anti-state messages.

After their arrest in early August, they were jointly interrogated and given a death sentence in early September. Around 20 people connected to them were reportedly given sentences of exile or reeducation. 

The execution, held at an open space in Mirim, was witnessed by residents who had been ordered to attend. 

A source said: 'All managers, such as market managers and stall managers, were required to attend, so over 200 residents gathered at the time.' 

A photograph from an earlier public sentencing. The couple, accused of being arrogant after the success of their business, were executed with hundreds of residents ordered to watch

According to reports, parents who had no childcare options were forced to bring their young children. 

The source added: 'Residents who had no place to leave their children had no choice but to bring them out. Middle school students passing by also joined the adults without any resistance and witnessed the horrific scene.'

Officials told residents that the execution was meant to act as 'a model for preventing economic chaos and educating the public.' 

The punishment was widely seen as a warning intended to cut off outside links and tighten the state's control over private business operations. 

The timing also raised attention - the execution took place shortly after the country's dictator, Kim Jong-un, returned from a visit to China. 

The source said it sent a message that 'there are no exceptions to internal discipline, even when cooperating with foreign countries,' and that it was part of a broader attempt to halt private business practices that go beyond what the state allows.

'It's clear that the intention is to show that anyone who goes even slightly beyond the limits permitted by the state can be punished as an example,' the source said. 

'All the business people are afraid after seeing this incident and thinking, 'We could get caught at any time, too.'

Residents who witnessed the killings were described as overwhelmed by fear. 

Market activity reportedly dropped sharply for several days. Businesses connected to the couple collapsed, and prices of batteries and related parts suddenly rose or stopped moving altogether.

The decision to allow children to witness the execution also caused alarm. 

The source said this had the effect of exposing minors to extreme violence, which many saw as deliberate.

'This incident is not simply about punishing acts of 'disrupting economic order,' the source said. 'It is about instilling fear in the public, especially among the youth, that 'the state can punish anyone if it wants to.'

North Korea has continued to carry out public executions as a means to instil fear and prevent people from doing what it deems as anti-republic. 

Most executions are by firing squad, which includes three soldiers shooting multiple rounds at the convicted individual. Executions by hanging have also been reported. 

Crowds are often ordered to attend the killings. Offences such as distributing foreign media can lead to a death sentence. 

Last year, a 22-year-old was killed for distributing K-pop from South Korea. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15301287/North-Korea-executes-big-shot-couple-arrogant-success-business-accusing-anti-republic.html

 Americans are currently banned from entering

The North Korean despot smiling with his military deputies 

Over 300 sites in North Korea have been identified as locations of public executions carried out by the hermit kingdom, drawing hundreds of forced spectators, as the part of a campaign to intimidate citizens

Jong Song Thaek, Kim's uncle, was publicly arrested (right), declared a 'traitor for the ages', hauled in front of anti-aircraft guns and blown to pieces

Hyon Yong Chol, North Korea's former defence minister (left), was also blown to pieces by anti-aircraft guns after he was caught on camera napping at a meeting chaired by Kim (right)

Children in North Korean schools are subjected to brutal beatings and hours of propaganda

Students in North Korea are taught propaganda songs about the country and learn that America is 'an eternal enemy we cannot coexist with'

Visits to North Korean schools show school murals glorifying missiles and depict graphic violence against US troops 

U.S. Marines covering the road leading to the front lines in South Korea in 1950

Islamic Terror News: Analysis | Europe 2002–2025: The Expanding Shadow of Islamic Terrorism

 

Analysis | Europe 2002–2025: The Expanding Shadow of Islamic Terrorism

With more than 1,100 killed since 2002, Europe must finally acknowledge the religious and ideological forces driving jihadist violence—and act before its social fabric erodes further

By Yaron Hanan, Israeldefense.co, 16/11/25

https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/66844

Temporary memorial to the victims of the November 13, 2015, Paris terrorist attacks at Place de la Republique, in Paris, France, on the tenth anniversary. Photo by Adnan Farzat/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect

Over the past two decades, Europe has faced an evolving and persistent threat from radical Islamic terrorism. From Madrid to Paris, from London to Berlin, extremist violence has undermined the continent’s sense of security and its cultural and ethical identity. Understanding the origins and persistence of this threat is essential to designing immediate security measures and laws that will provide resilience for a European future based on realistic Western values.

Since the early 2000s, Europe has faced a relentless wave of extremist Islamic terrorism. Over the past two decades, dozens of attacks by radicalized Muslims—citizens, immigrants, or foreign residents—have claimed thousands of lives. This is not conventional political or nationalist terrorism but a religiously driven ideology that seeks to impose spiritual and cultural dominance through violence against Western civilization.

Some of the deadliest incidents mark Europe’s modern history: the 2002 Moscow theater siege (132 dead), the 2004 Madrid train bombings (192), the 2005 London transit attacks (52), and the 2015 massacre in Paris (130), including the Bataclan Theater. Since then, knife attacks, car-rammings, and bombings have struck major cities from Berlin to Nice and Brussels. My research shows that since 2002, more than 1,100 people have been killed and 7,900 injured in Europe by extremist Islamic terrorism—an assault not on one nation, but on Western society as a whole.

A broader study by the Fondation pour l’Innovation Politique (2024) identifies the same global trend: since the 1970s, Islamist terrorism has been a worldwide phenomenon rooted in religious and cultural motives. It has claimed about 300,000 lives and left millions wounded or traumatized around the world. In 2024, European intelligence services uncovered Hamas cells backed by Iran and its proxies, as well as ISIS groups operating both from outside and within the continent.

Despite this evidence, many European politicians and media outlets still avoid acknowledging the religious nature of the threat. Fear of being labeled “racist” or “Islamophobic” has created a kind of moral paralysis. Instead of confronting jihadist ideology, public discourse often shifts the blame to poverty, discrimination, or Western colonial guilt. Yet the data collected is unambiguous: the vast majority of terrorist attacks in Europe over the past two decades were carried out by Muslims claiming to act in the name of Islam. Comparable large-scale terrorism from members of other faiths is virtually nonexistent.

Europe’s postwar identity—rooted in universal human rights, openness, and secular tolerance—is now under severe strain. These principles were designed for immigrants seeking integration, not for groups intent on preserving cultural isolation or imposing religious supremacy on their host societies. The Arab Spring of 2011 and the refugee crisis of 2015 accelerated this challenge, bringing hundreds of thousands of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa—many seeking safety, but some carrying values deeply opposed to liberty, gender equality, cultural and religious tolerance, and the rule of civil law. In parts of France, Britain, and Germany, self-governed enclaves have emerged where radical preachers and jihadist networks operate with limited state control.

Counterterrorism experts describe this as “voluntary moral blindness.” Out of fear of social backlash, leaders hesitate to act decisively, while human rights laws intended to protect individuals are sometimes used to shield extremists. Even the European Court of Human Rights has blocked deportations of radical Muslim clerics in the name of “individual rights,” weakening public safety.

Attempts at reform have faced resistance. France’s Islam de France initiative (2020–2021) sought to reduce foreign influence over mosques but encountered opposition from Islamist groups and sympathetic political factions. Britain’s Prevent program, aimed at identifying radicalization early, was perceived as stigmatizing, eroding trust in the state. Germany continues to face ideological enclaves supported by foreign funding from Turkey, Qatar, and others under the banner of religious freedom.

A quiet but significant shift has begun. A new European approach—sometimes called “safe liberalism”—recognizes that liberty and security must coexist. Governments are adopting pragmatic measures: linking citizenship rights to acceptance of national values, revoking citizenship for terrorists, monitoring religious funding, and requiring mosque sermons to be translated into local languages for transparency. Germany’s 2024 law mandating German-language sermons symbolizes this pragmatic turn.

Public attitudes are also changing. Where once any link between religion and violence was taboo, most Europeans now acknowledge that jihadist terrorism stems from ideological and cultural roots, not social despair. Support for stricter immigration controls and stronger counterterrorism laws has surged. Security agencies warn of a new threat—the “second generation of European jihadists”: young Muslims born and educated in Europe who nonetheless reject its values and identify with extreme Islamist movements abroad.

Europe’s leaders remain torn between tolerance and self-preservation, fearing to damage their nations’ image as inclusive societies. But the cost of inaction is rising: insecurity, social fragmentation, and the erosion of public trust. Today, it is clear: the counterterrorism act in Europe is still too little and too late!

Israel’s experience offers relevant lessons. As a democracy long exposed to terrorism, it has learned that freedom must have boundaries. It has been proven time and again to the Israelis that their nation's success rests on three pillars: uncompromising security vigilance, civic education promoting democratic values, and a legal system that distinguishes between legitimate dissent and incitement to violence. In Israel today, stricter laws are also needed to strengthen citizens' security against the threat of terrorism that regularly tries to raise its head. While not without dilemmas, Israel’s model demonstrates that moral clarity and decisive action are essential for survival against religiously motivated terror.

Europe now stands at a crossroads. The ideals of openness and human rights—pillars of its modern identity—are being challenged by an ideology that rejects them. Recognizing the religious and ideological roots of extremist violence does not mean labeling all Muslims as terrorists. Most are law-abiding citizens. Yet the incitement spread by radical Islamic leadership has driven many to commit horrific acts of terror on a scale unmatched by any other ideology in recent European history.

Only by acknowledging this reality, and defending liberal values with both conviction and courage, can Europe prevent the shadow of Islamist terrorism from darkening its future.

Yaron Hanan is an expert in risk management, resilience, and emergency management.

Former Jihadist Explains Why Ariana Grande Was Targeted for ISIS Attack

Europe ‘reeling’ from ‘shocking Islamist extremist’ terror attacks

Islamic Terrorism on the Rise in Europe!

Pud says: The world's hard left controlled mainstream media & the appeaser Socialist governments of the West are ignoring Islamic Terrorism as it does not fit the Marxist Elites global agenda of a one world government of rule by the Elites. 

Please Recommend this page and follow us at

https://disqus.com/home/forum/the-coconut-whisperer/