RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21750/france-and-europe-increasingly-submitting-to-islam

“We have imported another civilization.”– Former MP Philippe de Villers, YouTube, “eight months ago.”

“[W]here do those who do this come from? And why are they still here?” — Éric Zemmour, president of Reconquest, a right-of-center party he created in 2021. When he spoke out, he was sentenced to heavy fines, X, June 1, 2025.

When illegal immigrants are arrested, all of them are given an “Obligation to Leave French Territory” (Obligation de Quitter le Territoire Français/OQTF) and ordered to leave France immediately. No one, however, including the police, deports them, so most do not go.

France is being ravaged by the rise of Islam.

The United Kingdom, with a smaller proportion of Muslims than France or Belgium, seems also to be undergoing a slow submission to Islam.

Political parties in power for decades in all Western European countries — except Italy — seem deliberately blind to the danger facing them. Any party willing to take on the “great replacement,” is deliberately kept out of power.

The Dutch election will be closely watched. Wilders’s chances of winning again in October could promise a revival for the Netherlands — a second Enlightenment — and a regeneration for Europe.

Paris. June 21, 2025. Annual Music Festival. Ten years ago, orchestras played peacefully in the streets. Families strolled and stopped to listen. Security reigned and was taken for granted. In recent years, the atmosphere has changed — radically. Families no longer go out. Young men coming from the Islamic suburbs flood the city, prevent musicians they do not like from playing by shouting insults and threats, and by attacking anyone who gets in their way. This year, more than a hundred rape complaints were filed with the police. Countless knife attacks have left dozens injured. Stores are looted. What took place in Paris also took place in every major city of France.

https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2025/07/12/in-iran-walking-the-dog-is-now-a-crime-n4941703

The ruling elites of the Islamic Republic of Iran are not known worldwide for their friendly, sunny dispositions; in fact, they have a long and ever-growing list of pet hates, including America, Israel, women (at least if their heads are uncovered and they’re out in public), and man’s other best friend, dogs. The ruling Iranian mullahs have now extended a ban that was already in effect in over twenty Iranian cities to the entire country: it is now against the law to walk the dog. That means, of course, that while private ownership of dogs as pets is ostensibly permitted in Iran, it has for all intents and purposes been outlawed.

Wamiz, a French-language site devoted to news of our four-legged friends, reported on Tuesday that anyone walking a dog “on the streets of Iran now risks more than just a fine – and it’s all down to deeply religious reasons.” Walking a dog has been illegal for years in Tehran and many other cities, and now there is nowhere in the entire Islamic Republic that you can take your dog for a walk and not risk running afoul of the nation’s feared morality police. 

The ban is designed, according to Iranian authorities, to “maintain public order, ensure security and protect public health.” Wamiz, however, notes that “critics suspect a cultural-political message behind the crackdown.” This because for many Islamic hardliners in Iran, having a dog as a pet is not just unclean, but also shows that the dog owner has succumbed to the Satanic lure of the Western lifestyle. There are few things one can do to arouse more suspicion among Iranian authorities.

Owning a dog is such a bad thing to do in the Islamic Republic of Iran that the Ayatollah Khamenei himself has emphasized that “keeping dogs for reasons other than herding, hunting, and guard dogs is to be considered reprehensible.” He explained that “walking dogs damages Islamic culture as well as hygiene and the peace of others.”

Why would walking a dog damage Islamic culture? Quite simply, because Islam hates dogs. This goes for Shi’ite Islam, the dominant religion of Islam, as well as Sunni Islam, to which the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide adhere. Shi’ite collections of Muhammad’s words and deeds attribute quotes to him including “It is detestable for a Muslim to allow a dog to live in his house” (Al-Kafi H 12735, ch. 12, h 1); “Whoever keeps a dog, every day one qirat (a certain unit of measurement) is reduced from the (good) deeds of his owner” (Al-Kafi H 12736, ch. 12, h 2); and “There is nothing good in dogs except hunting dogs or that which guards cattle.” (Al-Kafi 12738, Ch. 12, h 4)

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21748/iran-ceasefire-dicey-intermission

[T]he recent flare-up has deeper reason than a concern about Iran building a nuclear arsenal, something which all directors general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from Hans Blix to Muhammad Al-Baradei and Rafael Grossi have repeatedly said they cannot confirm.

Tehran’s fourth demand may be the hardest for any American administration to even contemplate accepting: Accepting the Islamic Republic’s right to “export” its model of governance, its Islamic values and its campaign for “global justice” just as the US does by propagating its values. In other words, Tehran says: Let us do what we please and we promise not to make the bomb that we have always said we never intended to build.

[M]id-term election in the US… could transform Trump into a lame-duck president if Elon Musk’s new political Tesla manages to rob the Republicans of just six seats in the Congress and two or three in the Senate. At the same time, Israeli Prim Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s numerous political enemies may eventually manage to bring him down.

Thus, regime insiders believe it is imperative to prolong the current ceasefire, even through negotiations, until the two big clouds shaped like Trump and Netanyahu disappear like morning mist.

The current political situation doesn’t have only two sides: steadfastness and surrender. The third side is change, of course. which means giving the enemy a victory it didn’t win with war.

The recent attack by Israel and the US on parts of Iran’s nuclear project has already been dubbed by some commentators as the Twelve Day War.

However, that cut-off time was chosen by Tehran to back a claim that Iran managed to fight twice as long as Arab states led by Egypt did in the Six Days War of 1967.

In fact, with varying degrees of intensity and a diversity of locations, this war started more than four decades ago when the new revolutionary authorities raided the Israeli diplomatic mission in Tehran and handed it over to PLO leader Yasser Arafat on a visit as special guest of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. A few months later, the new revolutionary regime repeated the exercise by raiding the US Embassy and seizing its diplomats as hostages.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21735/muslim-leaders-who-oppose-terrorism

“You [Israelis] represent the world of brotherhood, the world of humanity, their world of affection, the world of democracy, the world of freedom.” — Hassen Chalghoumi, imam from France and head of the visiting delegation, at a meeting with Israeli President Isaac Herzog, July 7, 2025.

When Muslims say they support the Palestinian “resistance,” they are actually voicing support for terrorism and Hamas’s October 7 atrocities against Israelis and others.

Undoubtedly, there are some Muslims who are in favor of these kinds of visits and interfaith dialogue, but they either prefer to remain neutral or are afraid to voice their opinions in public. Muslims should applaud, not condemn, Muslim leaders who reach out to Israel and Jews and speak out against Islamist terror groups, for their own future: they can choose, instead of a life of fear a life of freedom, prosperity and opportunity.

A group of brave Islamic religious leaders from France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Italy and Britain who are visiting Israel this week are being condemned and ridiculed by many Muslims. The leaders are being accused of “treason” and promoting “normalization” with Israel.

The Muslim leaders did not come to Israel to stand against Muslims or the Palestinians. Rather, they came with a message of peace, coexistence and tolerance. They came to Israel out of a belief that interfaith dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims is imperative. Interfaith dialogue, which promotes peace and harmony, is important because it allows people to learn about different religions and cultures, and to appreciate the similarities and differences between them.

These Islamic leaders are heroes because they chose to visit Israel at a time when many Muslims, especially those living in Europe, are waging a massive smear campaign against Israel because of its war against the Iran-backed Hamas Islamist terror group in the Gaza Strip. Muslims who care about their religion should stand up against Islamist terrorists who have hijacked their religion and are committing atrocities in the name of Islam.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/07/the_shadowy_past_of_the_secret_bank_that_controls_the_world.html

Few people—even diligent media followers—are likely to speak knowledgably about the Bank of International Settlements (BIS). Yet, hidden in plain sight in a 20-story tower (with four more stories below ground level) in Basel, the BIS influences the leaders of the world’s top central banks and controls the global economy. Moreover, it cannot be questioned or held accountable for any of its actions. In his 2013 book Tower of Basel, Adam LeBor, a former reporter for The Economist and author of thoroughly researched works like Hitler’s Secret Bankers, The Last Days of Budapest, and City of Oranges, analyzes the bank’s history to explain how it gained unlimited power.

He also exposes its complete amorality. Thomas McKittrick, the bank’s chief during the war, whom the author calls “Hitler’s American Banker,” kept passing critical information to the Nazi regime. The BIS financed the Holocaust by accepting gold stolen by the Nazis from Belgium and marking it as German, even though a Belgian central banker warned that the gold had probably been melted down and re-stamped with German markings.

Austrian and Czech gold was also accepted as German deposits and kept out of reach. It was common knowledge that, besides gold from the governments of occupied nations, the Nazis were depositing gold stolen by the Devisenschutzkommando (DSK), Hitler’s special squads of treasure-hunting torturers. But that did not matter to the BIS. Kapital über alles, as LeBor titles the first part of the book.

Hunger for profit and disregard for ethics—these seem to be ingrained in the very DNA of the BIS. As recently as 1991, when the Argentinian economy collapsed and the country was $81 billion in debt, the BIS accepted—and thus kept out of creditors’ reach—money that should have rightfully been returned to them. Besides two fund management firms, the creditors were mostly pensioners who had invested in Argentinian bonds. The firms have sued the BIS and brought some attention to its highhandedness.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21731/iran-finish-the-job

Iran’s suspension of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is not a turning point. It is business as usual. Tehran’s decades-long strategy — deny, delay, deceive — continues, and the West still refuses to call it for what it is: a slow-motion march toward nuclear capability…. It has never stopped.

The problem is not that Iran has “suspended cooperation.” The problem is that the West keeps treating each step as if it is a fresh crisis that can still be reversed with enough diplomacy.

Iran will not stop, and diplomacy has an extremely low probability of working for a serious, long-term solution. Forty-six years of sanctions, deterrence, and inspections have all failed. Regime change appears the only realistic solution. It is what many Iranians still risk their lives demanding, what most of Iran’s neighbors would welcome, and what the broader international community would ultimately benefit from.

Iran’s suspension of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is not a turning point. It is business as usual. Tehran’s decades-long strategy — deny, delay, deceive — continues, and the West still refuses to call it for what it is: a slow-motion march toward nuclear capability. Some commentators are now warning that Iran has suspended cooperation and may finally pursue the bomb, as if that is not already taking place. Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons for decades. It has never stopped.

Iran started and developed its nuclear program in secrecy, lying to the world for years. It has repeatedly breached agreements and violated international limits whenever it saw an opportunity. It built secret facilities at Natanz and Fordow, buried centrifuges deep underground, and enriched uranium to higher levels while misleading international inspectors. Even when inspectors were allowed in, Iran’s disclosures were at best partial, its cooperation selective. Every so-called “deal” was a “pause” button, never a stop.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/07/07/7-7-and-the-refusal-to-confront-islamist-terror/

Have we learned the lessons of 7/7? So begins every trite radio and TV discussion today as we mark 20 years since four homegrown jihadists blew themselves up on London’s transport network and took 52 innocent souls with them.

Going by much of the commentary, you’d think this was a purely logistical, security question. There’s a long piece on the BBC website, talking about how the police and the security services were forced to up their game after the London Bombings, the new powers they now enjoy as a consequence, the attendant concerns over civil liberties, etc.

The words ‘Islamist’ and ‘jihadist’ do not appear once in the piece, even as it details the evolving ‘extremist’ threat posed first by al-Qaeda and then the ‘self-styled Islamic State’. There is often a stubborn refusal, a stammering hesitation, to mention what flavour of ‘extremism’ most menaces us – a cowardly tic that was skewered best by Morrissey: ‘An extreme what? An extreme rabbit?’

This attempt to brush over the I-word – to blithely ignore the religious, ideological character of those hellish bombings two decades ago – is everywhere today. The deadliest terror attack on UK soil since Lockerbie – the deadliest terror attack on London ever – is being talked about as if it were motivated by some vaguely defined form of ‘hate’ or ‘division’, rather than a global Islamist movement.

In his official statement today, King Charles says the attacks show the importance of ‘building a society where people of all faiths and backgrounds can live together with mutual respect and understanding’. What does this even mean? Does Charles, or his spokespeople, even know? Perhaps he thinks a well-timed interfaith meeting might have stopped those suicide bombers.

Back in 2016, the late great comedian Norm Macdonald posted a tweet for the ages: ‘What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device and kill 50million Americans. Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims?’ Today, as we mark 7/7, what you might call Macdonald’s Law – that any discussion of Islamic terrorism will almost immediately pivot away from the horror at hand and towards largely hypothetical fears of an anti-Muslim backlash – is once again in full effect.

‘For many in the British Muslim community, the tragedy of 7 July 2005 lives long in the memory’, reads a piece in the Guardian. By ‘tragedy’, the writer doesn’t mean those who were slain, had their legs blown off, or had their bodies sprayed with nails and glass, but the ‘feelings of suspicion, isolation and hostility’ experienced by some British Muslims after the attack.

We all know the purpose of articles like this. It isn’t to challenge anti-Muslim bigotry. It’s a brazen attempt to change the subject, from murders to feelings, from the questions the cultural elites would prefer not to discuss, to things that are totally uncontroversial, like racism being bad.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21730/judge-emperor-courts

In the West, it is not the executive that threatens the separation of powers. It is faceless judges lacking democratic legitimacy who legislate on the pretext of judging…. [T]his judicial imperialism… [has] become a judicial tyranny….

These innovations… have gradually established the Israeli Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of all questions, not only legal but also political. Any Israeli citizen — and any NGO, even one funded from abroad — has the right to ask the Supreme Court to overturn any democratic decision…. There is no decision of the Israeli government and parliament that cannot be overturned by unelected judges.

[Marine Le Pen and her supporters] argued, accurately, that the judges were essentially preventing the French people from voting for Le Pen.

There is effectively no longer a single “right-wing” measure that can be adopted in any field by Parliament or the government without being struck down by the Constitutional Council or the courts. When the left loses at the ballot box, it is certain to win in the courts. In France, the judge reigns and the people no longer seem to have sovereignty over anything.

The torrents of universal rules and requirements deriving from articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (e.g. privacy, dignity), and the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights are probably the worst modern example of tyrannical judicial imperialism. The anarchy of immigration in Europe is entirely of its making.

The US Supreme Court decided last week that the district court judges had jurisdiction over specific cases and plaintiffs in their districts — not across the nation.

“The judges of the nation are only the mouth that pronounces the words of the law, inanimate beings who can neither moderate its force nor its rigor.”
— Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (1748), Book XI, Chapter VI

From Israel to the United States, via Europe, the judicial coup d’état has become permanent. In the West, it is not the executive that threatens the separation of powers. It is faceless judges lacking democratic legitimacy who legislate on the pretext of judging. Here are four salient examples of this judicial imperialism — which have become a judicial tyranny — and a proposed American solution.

Israel

In the 1980s and 1990s, the Israeli Supreme Court introduced three innovations that revolutionized Israel’s legal and political landscape. First, it abolished the “standing” requirement, allowing anyone to challenge any government decision before the Supreme Court simply because they disagreed with it, even if they were not personally affected by it. This is unique in the Western world. Second, the Court removed the restriction on justiciability, placing all government and administrative actions (including foreign affairs, military actions and the budget) under its control — an extraordinary measure. Third, the Court took on the power to assess the “reasonableness” of government decisions, thus giving itself a political veto over the elected government’s choices.