RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/trending/new-this-fall-the-preschool-hijab/

The U.K. these days is full of recalcitrants. Take all those rabble who, ignoring the wise counsel of the entire British establishment, had the audacity to vote for Brexit. Or the countless peasants who took to the streets this summer to show their support for that loathsome blackguard Tommy Robinson. Or all those troublemakers who criticize Islam online, forcing the poor police to send officers around to knock on their doors and order them to cut it out.

In this disobedient atmosphere, one institution stands out for its fealty to contemporary British values. Marks & Spencer, the giant retail food and clothing chain, has been around since 1884 but has striven admirably to stay up to date. A few years ago, for instance, in the wake of “consultations with religious groups,” M&S gave Muslim employees permission to deny service to customers buying alcohol or pork products. (By contrast, the official guidelines issued by another major chain, Sainsbury’s, said “there was no reason why staff who did not drink alcohol or eat pork for religious reasons could not handle the goods,” while yet another big chain, Tesco, “said it ‘made no sense’ to employ staff on a till who refused to touch certain items for religious reasons.” Islamophobes!)

Now M&S is being harassed again for showing proper deference to Islamic norms. Among the items it is hawking as part of its selection of “essential” school supplies are hijabs for young girls. How young? Different media report different figures. The Telegraph says that the hijabs are designed for girls aged nine and up. The radio station LBC says they fit girls as young as three. So does “secular Muslim” activist Maajid Nawaz, who in a tweet accused M&S of “facilitat[ing] medievalism.” The question of just what age the smallest of these hijabs are intended for was taken up, but not decisively settled, in an article in Metro, although an exchange of tweets between customers and helpful M&S employees made clear that the “large” size hijab — they come in “large,” “medium,” and “small” — is meant for “a 6-8 year-old,” and the Express noted that “online reviews suggest a ‘medium’ would fit a four-year-old.” CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13117/spain-prisons-islamic-state

The group — which Spain’s Interior Ministry described as a jihadi “Prisons Front” (“frente de cárceles”) — was engaged in recruiting, indoctrinating and radicalizing other inmates, as well as in plotting new jihadi attacks.

“We want to prepare ourselves for the jihad for Allah. I have good news: I have created a new group, we are willing to die for Allah at any moment. We are waiting to be released from prison so that we can begin working. We have men, we have weapons and we have targets. All we need is practice.” — Mohamed Achraf, in a letter written from prison to another inmate.

“The majority of the individuals being investigated, far from being deradicalized, have not only remained active in jihadi militancy, but have become even more radical during their incarceration.” — Spanish Interior Ministry.

Spanish police have dismantled a jihadi network operating inside and across more than a dozen Spanish prisons. The network, allegedly linked to the Islamic State, was established and operated by one of the most implacable jihadis in the Spanish prison system — apparently under the noses of prison authorities.

The network’s existence has called into question not only the effectiveness of security procedures in Spanish prisons, but also of Spanish “deradicalization” programs, which are aimed at “rehabilitating” Islamic militants for eventual “reinsertion” into society.

The group’s core members included 25 jihadis in 17 different prisons (accounting for more than half of the 30 Spanish prisons equipped to house jihadi convicts), according to the Interior Ministry, which provided details of the counterterrorism operation on October 2.

The group — which the Interior Ministry described as a jihadi “Prisons Front” (“frente de cárceles”) — was engaged in recruiting, indoctrinating and radicalizing other inmates, as well as in plotting new jihadi attacks.

The network’s members included convicted jihadis as well as common inmates who were radicalized in prison. Among them were several Spanish citizens who are converts to Islam. Some members were nearing the end of their sentences and were waiting to be released from prison.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13128/multiculturalism

Prof. Jan Keller is a Czech Social Democrat Member of the European Parliament, sociologist, analyst, commentator and author of more than 30 books, including Sociology of the Organization and Bureaucracy (2007) or The Three Social Worlds (2011). He studied at the universities of Bordeaux (1985), Aix-en-Provence (1988) and Sorbonne (1992) in Paris. He has lectured sociology at the University of Lille, Poitiers, Trento, Lodz and Barcelona.This article is based on a speech delivered at the seminar, “Is Mass Immigration a Condition for Prosperity of Europe?” held by the Institute Vaclav Klaus in Prague on March 19, 2015 and is published here with the kind permission of the author. It was translated into English by Josef Zbořil.

The policy of multiculturalism, which emphasizes the benefits of cultural diversity for society and the state, is an example of the exploitation of others based on a fantasy of virtue. Those at whom the sweet talk of multiculturalism is aimed, can see that it has done nothing to improve their lot, and are now realizing that their future is bleak.

If we bring in highly qualified immigrants to our workforce, we would be taking away from poorer countries the best they have to offer, and the situation in those countries will further deteriorate. The result will be an even greater flow of unskilled migrants escaping those countries.

The proponents of the new multiculturalism want to share their welfare states with masses of refugees who — through no fault of their own — will be unable to participate in financing themselves for a long time to come.

Multiculturalism is not a manifestation of Europe’s generosity, or some noble embodiment of love and truth. Multiculturalism is what remains after mass migration reveals itself as a threat, rather than a benefit, to the economies of European countries.

Take, for instance, the example of France. After the Second World War, when France underwent a boom of economic growth, waves of migration were viewed favorably: there were many job opportunities for unskilled and medium-skilled laborers, and the native French population aspired to work in the tertiary sector, which offered more qualified, better-paid jobs. From the end of the war until the mid-1970s, foreign workers tended to come to France temporarily, without their families, and return to their countries of origin. These workers were generally recruited from former French colonies to do menial and low-paying jobs — not in order to enrich the culture of the host country.

At the end of the 1970s, that situation changed. Foreign workers began coming to France with their families and also having children after arriving in the country. At the same time, however, there were changes in the economy that ended up leaving descendants of the recruited workers hopeless. While their parents had experienced some upward mobility, they themselves — even those with a higher level of education than their parents — were left with fewer job opportunities and became a surplus on the labor market; they also did not have another place to go. In other words, they had been born in a country that suddenly had nothing to offer. The only thing that the government could come up with was a rationale for the dire situation — a mission for these children of migrants: that they should enrich themselves culturally in the country to which their parents had migrated. This new policy of multiculturalism, which emphasizes the benefits of cultural diversity for society and the state, is an example of the exploitation of others based on a fantasy of virtue. Those at whom the sweet talk of multiculturalism is aimed, can see that it has done nothing to improve their lot, and are now realizing that their future is bleak.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/theresa-mays-brexit-policy-change-or-be-voted-out/

Either she will have to change her Brexit policy, or her party will change its leader.

When Prime Minister Theresa May danced onto the stage at the Tory conference yesterday to speak to the assembled Tories, she did so as a leader whom 80 percent of Conservatives want to see replaced before the next election. Admittedly, polls show that only about one-third of Tories said they wanted her replaced at once. An easygoing 40 percent would be content if she departed sometime between now and July 2022. Still, only one-fifth of Tories want May to stay leader past that point. They’re old-fashioned: They disapprove of assisted suicide.

Even so, anyone who knows the Tory party will find this level of internal opposition extraordinary. Grassroots Tories have traditionally been deferential — they know their place — and Tory MPs have been clever at disguising their opposition until some dramatic event gives them license to rebel respectably. Election defeats usually provide this: Alec Douglas-Home, Ted Heath, John Major, William Hague, Michael Howard, and David Cameron all fell in this way.

Theresa May did not actually lose the 2017 election — she led Labour by two points in the popular vote — but she lost her party’s parliamentary majority in an election that was generally expected to produce a Tory landslide. That near-defeat was plainly attributable both to her own robotic campaign performance and to her policies — such as the so-called “dementia tax” that alienated older voters, a natural Tory constituency. She should have been defenestrated then.

May was able to hold on as PM because Conservatives thought she would unite the party in support of implementing Brexit, after which she would smilingly resign and be given the credit for a historic achievement. That was naïve, of course: What political leader resigns after a great achievement? But what no one then expected is that May would pursue a policy designed to ensure that Brexit never occurs — or that what does occur is Remain lightly disguised as Brexit, or worse.

Worse than Remain? Well, yes. May’s Brexit proposals — now known as “Chequers,” after the PM’s country house, where they were imposed on a surprised cabinet days after May had personally assured the secretary of state for exiting the EU that she had no such intentions — would effectively keep Britain inside the EU’s single market (i.e., by accepting its current and future regulations) and its customs union, and keep it subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice while forfeiting its votes in all EU institutions.

Not enough for you? Then ponder this: The London Times has reported that the government is now prepared to cut a deal with the EU that would prevent a post-Brexit U.K. from reaching free-trade deals with other countries such as Australia, Canada, and . . . the United States. Such a deal would breach the reddest of red lines laid down by Theresa May and the Tory party since the 2016 referendum. Yet no one thinks the report is mistaken. And May has continued to say in interviews that final agreement with the EU will require concessions from both sides. But what has May left to concede?

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/10/africas-looming-venezuela/

There are better ways for South Africa to implement land reform than expropriation without compensation. Vast swathes are owned by government and much of this, rather than properties seized by parliamentary decree, could easily be transferred to deserving families and communities.

The South African government’s planned land grab from farmers, known as Expropriation Without Compensation (EWC), sets a damning precedent for the country by threatening both fundamental property rights as well as South Africa’s economic prosperity.

Earlier this year, the parliament of South Africa supported the EWC resolution to amend section 25 of their Constitution. Currently, S25 mandates that the government must pay just and equitable compensation when it expropriates land. South African president, Ramaphosa claims that EWC Is necessary for restoring land stolen during apartheid, redistributing land so that home ownership correlates with racial demographics in order to appease the electorate which he argues, has been clamouring for land reform. He believes that the country’s economy will not be adversely impacted, yet the evidence suggests otherwise.

The EWC will weaken fundamental property rights and causing destitution and strife. The International Property Rights Alliance (IPRA), an international coalition of property rights advocacy groups of which the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance is the local affiliate, have cautioned the South African government against continuing with its proposed policy of expropriating private property, arguing that the proposed policy will undermine constitutional democracy. The proposed amendments would apply to both physical and intellectual property, from trademarks and patents to houses, vehicles and even heirlooms. The government may be tempted to abuse the new powers in order to undermine their political opponents. Land could be arbitrarily expropriated, as well as other forms of property such as pensions to fund government programmes.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cyber-criminals-in-the-kremlin-1538685869

Several governments on Thursday made a coordinated release of new information about Russian cyber espionage, including an indictment of seven Russian intelligence agents from the Department of Justice in Washington. Authorities are performing a public service by lifting the veil of secrecy that usually envelops counterintelligence.

The Justice indictment names seven agents in the Kremlin’s intelligence agency, the GRU, for hacking attacks against sports antidoping agencies and Westinghouse Electric Co. As payback for investigations into Russian athletes’ use of banned performance-enhancing drugs, the GRU stole online data about hundreds of other athletes—even sending agents to Rio de Janeiro to hack the computers of antidoping officials at a conference. Then it leaked confidential information to embarrass innocent sportsmen and women.

Meanwhile, the Dutch government says four Russian agents showed up in April intending to hack the wireless network at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in the Hague. The plan appears to have been to place sophisticated equipment in a rental car and then park outside the building with the trunk pointed toward the offices to pick up wireless computer transmissions.

The OPCW at the time was investigating the Kremlin’s use of a nerve agent to try to assassinate a Russian double agent in the U.K.—an attack that killed an innocent civilian. The agency also was investigating the use of chemical weapons by Russia’s client regime in Syria.

There’s evidence that the spies would have headed to an OPCW-affiliated lab in Switzerland if the Dutch hadn’t nabbed them. The British government says the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Porton Down military lab also were targets of failed Russian cyberattacks at about the same time.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271500/jeremy-corbyn-calls-arms-embargo-israel-hugh-fitzgerald

The Labour Party — Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party –has called for the U.K to impose a total arms embargo on Israel. This would not be the first time the U.K. has imposed such an embargo on Israel. In the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war, at the time of maximum peril to the Jews of Israel, with the nascent state invaded by the armies of five Arab states, Great Britain also imposed such an embargo. It was not alone. The United States also banned sending arms to the belligerents on either side. The most important weapons deliveries, including airplanes, for the Jews in 1947-49 came from Czechoslovakia.

The British, unlike the Americans, did not impose an arms embargo on both sides in 1948. Instead, they continued to supply arms to Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq. More important, the British armed, trained, and provided officers, to the Arab Legion of Jordan. Under the overall command of General John Bagot Glubb, the Arab Legion was the most effective fighting force on the Arab side, and the only one that could claim a clear victory — at Latrun — over the Jews during the 1948 war. Even before the war was declared by the Arab states, the Arab Legion joined forces with local Arabs, who attacked the four Israeli settlements that made up the Etzzion bloc. The Jewish forces consisted of members of the Hagana militia and kibbutzniks. Of the 129 Haganah fighters and Jewish kibbutzniks who died during the defence of the settlement, Martin Gilbert states that fifteen were murdered on surrendering.

Controversy surrounds the responsibility and role of the Arab Legion in the killing of those who surrendered. The official Israeli version maintains that the kibbutz residents and Haganah soldiers were massacred by local Arabs and the Arab Legion of the Jordanian Army as they were surrendering. The Arab Legion version maintains that the Legion arrived too late to prevent the attack on the kibbutz by men from nearby Arab villages. The surrendering Jewish residents and fighters are said to have been assembled in a courtyard, only to be suddenly fired upon; it is said that many died on the spot, while most of those who managed to flee were hunted down and killed. Israel continues to insist that members of the British-commanded Arab Legion took part in the killing of those who had surrendered.

John Bagot Glubb was one of those old-style British Arabists — some called him a second Lawrence of Arabia — who went native in a big way, even able to converse with the Bedouin in their own dialects. When he was finally discharged by King Hussein in 1956 — Hussein wanted to totally “arabize” the Legion and show other Arabs that he was indeed Jordan’s ruler — Glubb Pasha retired to his home in Great Britain, and wrote a series of books “to dispel Western misconceptions and prejudices about the Arab world and Islam.” Delving deep into the past, he started that series in 1964 with ”The Great Arab Conquests,” a book on seventh-century Arabia where, he wrote, the Bedouins ”established the greatest empire in the world of their day.” A second book, ‘The Lost Centuries,” published in 1966, “traced the destiny of the Moslem empires from the 12th century to the European renaissance in the 15th.” A third book. “The Life and Times of Muhammad” again was an effort to correct cliches he thought had “distorted the image of the founder of Islam and his religion.” Glubb was a great admirer of the Arabs. He adopted two Palestinian Arab children. He also was an apologist for Islam. And the Arab Legion stood for all the military aid that the British lavished on the Arab side in that 1947-1949 conflict.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271504/international-court-justice-sides-mullahs-joseph-klein

During his address to the United Nations General Assembly last week, President Trump rejected the notion of global governance institutions purporting to override national sovereignty. President Trump called out the International Criminal Court, which “has no legitimacy or authority,” he said. The president vowed to “never surrender America’s sovereignty” to such an “unelected, unaccountable” globalist body. The UN’s top court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, has just rendered a decision against the United States and in favor of Iran that demonstrates why President Trump is so correct. The ICJ judges ruled that some sanctions imposed by the Trump administration on the Iranian regime were inconsistent with the “Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights” between Iran and the United States, which was signed in Tehran in 1955 and entered into force in 1957.

The ICJ disgracefully relied on this treaty to both assert jurisdiction over Iran’s complaint, and to decide at least provisionally in Iran’s favor on the merits. It ordered the immediate removal of U.S. sanctions on certain products for import into Iran, pending the court’s final decision in the case. President Trump must, as he is expected to do, disregard this disgraceful ruling, and any follow-on rulings. The ICJ decision is an affront to the United States’ sovereign right to decide what nations it chooses to do business with and which countries it decides not to do business with, for whatever reasons it chooses including national security.

Following the ICJ ruling, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States would cancel the treaty that anachronistically still includes “Amity” and “Consular Rights” in its title. That’s good, but unnecessary. The treaty is already dead as a result of the Iranian Islamist regime’s own gross violations of the treaty itself and of conventional international law principles, capped by the unlawful seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the detention of hostages under inhumane conditions by the regime’s supporters in 1979, which the regime endorsed.

The International Court of Justice’s entire rationale for its decision rests on this dead treaty. “The Court considers that the United States, in accordance with its obligations under the 1955 Treaty,” the ICJ declared unanimously, “must remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from the measures announced on 8 May 2018 to the free exportation to the territory of Iran of goods required for humanitarian needs, such as (i) medicines and medical devices, and (ii) foodstuffs and agricultural commodities, as well as goods and services required for the safety of civil aviation, such as (iii) spare parts, equipment and associated services (including warranty, maintenance, repair services and safety-related inspections) necessary for civil aircraft. To this end, the United States must ensure that licences and necessary authorizations are granted and that payments and other transfers of funds are not subject to any restriction in so far as they relate to the goods and services referred to above.”

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13072/le-pen-dissent-mental-illness

A 615-page report was recently released, written by an adviser to President Emmanuel Macron, Hakim El Karoui, who is in charge of designing the new institutions of an “Islam of France.” The report defines Islamism as an “ideology totally distinct from Islam” and also never addresses the links between Islamism and terrorism. The report also insists on the urgent need to spread “true Islam” in France and adopt the teaching of Arabic in public high schools.
The court’s request, for Marine Le Pen to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine if she is sane, indicates that French authorities might be reviving the old Soviet use of “psychiatry” to silence dissidents or political opponents.
The legal offensive against Marine Le Pen was actually added to the financial offensive. Even if Le Pen is not sent to prison, the law seems to have been used to open the possibility of declaring her ineligible for the European Parliament elections scheduled for May 2019.

On December 16, 2015, a French journalist on a mainstream radio station compared France’s right-wing National Front Party to the Islamic State (ISIS) by saying that there is a “community of spirit” between them and that both push those who support them to “withdraw into their own identity”. Marine Le Pen, the president of the National Front party, speaking of a “unacceptable verbal slippage,” asked the radio station for the right to answer. She then published on Twitter images showing the bodies of victims of the Islamic State and adding: “ISIS is this!”

The French media immediately accused her of broadcasting “indecent” and “obscene” images, and shortly after that, the French government ordered the Department of Justice to indict her. On November 8, 2017 the French national assembly also lifted her parliamentary immunity.

A few months later, a judge mandated by the French government, charged Marine Le Pen with “disseminating violent images,” citing article 227-24 of the French Penal Code, which defines the crime of:

“… disseminating… a message of a violent nature, inciting terrorism, pornographic or likely to seriously violate human dignity or to incite minors to engage in games that physically endanger them, or to commercialize such a message.”

http://www.investigativeproject.org/

The Austrian government is considering outlawing a four-fingered salute representing support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan popularized it and began using it after Egypt’s military toppled the Brotherhood in 2013.

Muslim Brotherhood members and sympathizers around the world use the image on websites, posters and literature. If the ban is approved, anyone in Austria who flashes the salute could be fined $4,600.

It also has been used by Muslim Brotherhood supporters in the United States, including members of Egyptian Americans for Freedom and Justice (EAFJ) and former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official Mohamed Elibiary.

Erdogan’s role in popularizing the gesture seems to be driving the Austrian ban. It also would outlaw a wolf-head like salute used by the pro-Erdogan Turkish fascist group the Grey Wolves. Its most infamous member, Mehmet Ali Agca, tried to assassinate Pope John Paul II in 1981. The Wolves have become some of Erdogan’s greatest non-Islamist supporters and aim to unify all Turkic peoples in Turkey across and throughout Central Asia into a single nation.

It was the only group besides Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) that backed constitutional changes allowing him to consolidate power.

So far Turkey hasn’t responded.