RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20852/britain-authoritarianism-free-speech

The teenage son of a Rwandan migrant family stabbed three little girls to death at a Taylor Swift-themed dance workshop in Southport, a city near Liverpool, on July 29. The murders triggered protests and riots by Britons who have apparently had enough.

Within a day of the first protests, Prime Minister Keir Starmer gave a speech in which he barely mentioned the murdered little girls, yet painted those who protested as “far right thugs…” He added that he was creating a special Violent Crime Unit, dedicated to fighting — guess who — the protesters.

Incredibly, Starmer’s first act after the murders was not, as one might expect, to deal with concerns over the safety of British citizens, but to dedicate funds to new emergency security for mosques.

Starmer could have stopped the demonstrators in their tracks by listening to — and addressing — the concerns of “ordinary” people in the wake of the murders. Instead, he chose to brand them as “far right thugs”, thereby inflaming an entire country…

Police further inflamed matters by setting their dogs on harmless protesters, arresting many, and handcuffing a 73-year-old lady with a pacemaker who had never been arrested before, and was guilty of just peacefully protesting the murders of young girls.

“I’m 73 years old and I’ve here because of them babies that has died and I’m being arrested,” said the woman, who was surrounded by riot police.

In Plymouth, according to one report, while leftist radicals were destroying a church… police were not stopping the radicals, but instead beating the protesters.

The director of public prosecutions of England and Wales, Stephen Parkinson, chillingly warned that sharing and retweeting online material of the riots was a serious offense that would lead to arrest.

So, retweeting posts on X now gets you sent to the pokey. A Muslim brandishing an AK-47 assault rifle on social media, however, while threatening to blow people’s heads off, is apparently acceptable.

What the police did not do was arrest the gangs of armed Muslim men who took to the streets across British cities. In Birmingham, Bolton, and Middlesbrough, “Muslim patrol” members beat white people, whom they accused of being part of the anti-mass migration protests.

Why were no police officers present? When West Midlands police were asked why they did nothing about “an awful lot of people armed with various weapons” (Muslim gangs) in Birmingham, the answer was that the Muslim communities had been allowed to “do their own policing”.

“We have really strong business and community relations [with Muslim communities]… we had the opportunity to meet with [Muslim] community leaders, meet with [Muslim] business leaders… to kind of understand the style of policing that we needed to deliver…” — West Midlands Police Superintendent Emlyn Richards.

He [Richards] then went on to note that the counter-protesters (the Muslim gangs) had “the right intentions” and that only “a small minority” of people had been intent on causing “either criminality, disorder or fear within our communities.”

Curiously, British police did not acknowledge “right intentions” of those protesting the Southport murders and that only “a small minority” had engaged in violence and riots against the police, hotels hosting illegal migrants, and mosques.

Contrary to what the police said, Muslim “elders” appeared to incite members of their community in Birmingham, telling them to “protect the house of Allah” against the “far right” and messaging Starmer that they were fully able to “defend themselves”.

The Chief Constable of the West Midlands… released a video statement addressed to the Muslims in the region, greeting them deferentially with “Salam Alaykum,” and reassuring them of the police’s support and giving “huge thanks” to their “elders” for their “cooperation.”

Using the ongoing protests across Britain to crack down — one-sidedly — on basic rights, Starmer has successfully exacerbated racial conflict, inflamed tensions, created division, penalized free speech and neatly sneezed at legitimate concerns.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/battle-for-britain/

Should anyone be surprised that what has been called a “wave of violence” swept the cities of Britain this past weekend?

For years, while the mass immigration of Muslims has utterly transformed their country, the overwhelming majority of Brits have stuck to form – keeping a stiff upper lip, queuing politely for buses, and biting their tongues as they watched entire neighborhoods, such as the traditionally cockney East End of London, converted to Muslim enclaves. In the months since October 7, they sat home and sipped their tea while armies of Muslims filled their streets weekend after weekend, screaming their support for anti-Western terrorism and shouting their plans to turn Britain into an Islamic caliphate. Those decent Britishers even tended to stay quiet while the few heroic members of their race who protested these outrages – men like Tommy Robinson and Laurence Fox – were abused, insulted, and unjustly arrested by a police force that has strayed far from the civilized rules of police behavior set down two centuries ago by Sir Robert Peel and has practiced “two-tier policing” – turning a blind eye to actual Muslim violence while imprisoning ethnic Englishmen who dare to criticize that violence online.

Well, eventually something’s got to give. This weekend, according to the Guardian, “bricks were hurled at police officers in Stoke-on-Trent, fireworks were thrown amid tense exchanges between an anti-Islamic group and an anti-racism rally in Belfast, and windows of a hotel which has been used to house migrants were smashed in Hull, where three police officers were injured and four people arrested. Several officers were also injured during ‘serious disorder’ in Liverpool city centre, where bricks, bottles and a flare were thrown and one officer hit on the head with a chair. Greater Manchester police said a dispersal notice had been authorised for the city centre and scuffles broke out as opposing groups faced each other in Nottingham’s Old Market Square with bottles and other items thrown from both sides.”

https://melaniephillips.substack.com/p/the-boundaries-of-free-speech?utm_campaign=email-post&r=8t06w&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

To loud and horrified criticism, Britain’s new Labour government scrapped a law on free speech days before it was about to come into force.

This law, which had been introduced by the previous Conservative government, was designed to enforce freedom of speech in universities, colleges and student unions. This was in response to “cancel culture”, the shocking suppression of ideas on campus that challenge left-wing orthodoxies and which has resulted in the hounding of conservative speakers and persecution of academics with heterodox views, such as “gender critical” feminists who believe that sexual identity is dictated by biological fact.

Not surprisingly, such embattled feminists along with numerous conservative thinkers and writers have reacted viscerally to the scrapping of this law. 

However, a number of Jewish organisations opposed it. They feared that it would hand a weapon to antisemites and anti-Zionists that would enable them to claim legal backing for their promulgation of poisonous views that threatened the safety of Jews on campus and elsewhere.

So which camp is right?

The Free Speech Union, which has threatened to launch a judicial review of the government’s decision, said that killing off the legislation would make it “virtually impossible for students and academics to challenge radical progressive ideology on campus”.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20837/iran-mullahs-view-us-election

Since assuming office, the Biden-Harris administration, in the tradition of former President Barack Obama, released billions of dollars to Iran. In addition, there was lax enforcement of existing sanctions, waiving of other sanctions and no secondary sanctions whatsoever — meaning that any country that does business with Iran is banned from doing business with the US — placed on Iran to discourage other countries from financing it.

China therefore has become Iran’s largest customer, and Europe conducting business as usual. This financial relief has come alongside a lenient attitude towards the advancements in Iran’s nuclear program. These include more than 160 Iranian military attacks against US troops just since October; virtually shutting down the Suez Canal, thereby forcing ships, unable to buy insurance, to detour around Africa; Iran’s and its terror groups’ military actions in the region, including the war against Israel, and Iran’s military support to Russia to attack Ukraine.

Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, openly acknowledged that without Iran’s financial and military support, many militia and terror groups might have been unable to survive.

The Trump administration’s sanctions forced Iran’s leaders to cut funding to militias, allies, and terror groups. The regime’s militants reportedly were not receiving their salaries or benefits, preventing them from fighting. As one Iran-backed militia fighter in Syria told The New York Times, “The golden days are gone and will never return. Iran does not have enough money to give us.”

It is no wonder why Iran is apprehensive about the prospect of a Trump victory. Under Biden-Harris or Democratic leadership, the Iranian regime enjoys financial benefits and total impunity. Under Trump, the “golden days” might again come to an end.

In Iran’s latest presidential elections, the candidates revealed that they are concerned about the possibility of former President Donald J. Trump winning the upcoming US election. From their perspective, a victory for Trump would be detrimental to their interests.

Since assuming office, the Biden-Harris administration, in the tradition of former President Barack Obama, released billions of dollars to Iran. In addition, there was lax enforcement of existing sanctions, waiving of other sanctions and no secondary sanctions whatsoever — meaning that any country that does business with Iran is banned from doing business with the US — placed on Iran to discourage other countries from financing it.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20835/iran-desperately-seeking-gorbachev

Gorbachev had a thin resume as an apparatchik who had risen in the party by doing nothing, in fact, by being nobody.

When he came to London to be promoted by Margaret Thatcher, his 10-line resume introduced him as the Central Committee’s agricultural tsar who had risen to be party boss and later president of the USSR.

He was a blank face on which one could draw one’s ideal face for a Soviet leader.

Iran’s President Pezeshkian offers that kind of blank face. His thin resume inspires a variety of fanciful images.

Could Pezeshkian be Iran’s Gorbachev?

Referring to President Masoud Pezeshkian, the question was headlined in a Tehran daily Tuesday and triggered a torrent of comments.

The paper’s commentator described Pezeshkian as a man trusted by the system and thus capable of introducing unspecified reforms to save Iran from unspecified dangers.

This is not the first time that regime insiders call for adjustments in its trajectory.

The first to do so was Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, who issued an 8-point reform manifesto which, had it been implemented, would have made Iran a Scandinavian-style democracy minus the monarchy.

Needless to say, that didn’t happen.

Instead, the nation witnessed mass executions, the pursuit of an unwinnable war against Iraq and flood-like spread of corruption.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20822/eu-von-der-leyen-program

[T]his reduction [of greenhouse gas emissions] structures and determines the whole of the Commission’s program, because all human activity — industrial, commercial and private — emits greenhouse gases. In fact, in a program document published by the Commission in February 2024, already under the aegis of von der Leyen, are plans to invest 1.5 trillion euros per year in decarbonizing the European Union, and to this end take authoritarian measures in all areas of human activity. The amount is equivalent to 10% of Europe’s GDP — every year. Apparently this policy is the uncompromising model found in every party in Germany, but apart from a war effort, there is no objective of any kind that has ever required the diversion of 10% of a continent’s GDP by political decree.

European funds, which are distributed to EU member states in various ways, will henceforth be “conditional on respect for the rule of law”… In other words, any deviation from the EU’s ideological line, in any area, will be subject to financial sanctions – as is already happening with Hungary. This new direction for the EU will lead to the ideology of Western Europe being imposed on Eastern Europe: “open borders”, environmentalism, the fight against “hate” — but only “hate” from the right of the political spectrum.

In particular, the aim is apparently to penalize social media networks that refuse to censor their users or, more precisely, that refuse to penalize their users in the way the EU wants… either X submits to the EU’s ideology and censorship, or X will have a part of its global revenue confiscated.

Again and again, the suggestion is set forth to build a European army, essentially supported by states such as Germany and Belgium, which… would already be incapable of defending their own borders without American assistance.

[I]n accordance with the ECHR’s case law, any illegal immigrants intercepted in the Mediterranean, even within sight of the African coast, must be brought to the European Union to exercise their “rights.” A tenfold increase in the number of border guards would do nothing to change the law in force; as long as the law is not reformed, unlimited and unvetted migration in Europe will continue.

[A] whole series of new regulations with global ambitions are announced, confirming the EU’s claim to legislate not just for Europe, but for the world. For instance, a “European Oceans Pact” — note the “s” in Oceans – is declared: evidently the EU claims to regulate all the world’s oceans, whereas it only dips its toes in one.

Of these groups, the center-right is by far the largest…. [But] It is the demands of the smallest group — environmentalists — that dominate….

By refusing on principle ever to govern with real right-wing parties, the center-right guarantees that the left remains forever in power.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20827/iran-nuclear-weapon-horror

Iran has hardly been shy about articulating its genocidal objectives against Israel. Iran’s newly elected President Masoud Pezeshkian, in early July, reaffirmed “Tehran’s dedication to destroying Israel.” This aim, he added, is “rooted in the fundamental policies of the Islamic Republic.”

The question, therefore, is what exactly is to be done to prevent a nuclear catastrophe initiated by Iran, one that could arrive at any moment?

“In the Middle East, Iran is virtually behind all the terrorism…. When he founded the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini pledged, ‘We will export our revolution to the entire world. We will export the Islamic revolution to the entire world’… which country ultimately stands in the way of Iran’s maniacal plans to impose radical Islam on the world?… It’s America, the guardian of Western civilization and the world’s greatest power. That’s why Iran sees America as its greatest enemy… Last month…. the foreign minister of Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah… said this: ‘This is not a war with Israel. Israel… is merely a tool. The main war, the real war, is with America.'” — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking before a joint session of the US Congress, July 25 2o24.

“Is this war now with Israel?… My answer is that this is not a war with Israel. Israel is merely a tool. The main war, the real war, is with America.” — Khalil Rizk, Hezbollah’s head of foreign relations on Al-Manar TV, June 17, 2024.

“The greatest tragedy of the Jewish people,” Nobel Peace Prize laureate Eli Wiesel stated, “is that they listen to the promises of their friends and not the threats of their enemies.”

The leaders of Israel should take seriously the threats of their enemies and act to protect both Israel and the Free World from potential imminent disaster.

The primary obligation of any national leader, including Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is to protect the integrity of the country’s borders and to ensure the safety of every citizen. Netanyahu’s legal, political, and moral duty is to ensure that every citizen can live in peace, and be free, prosperous, and independent.

https://melaniephillips.substack.com/p/murder-machetes-and-mobs-in-britain?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=77655&post_

Hardly had we managed to digest the horrific news of the massacre of small children at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class yesterday in a northern English town than we were looking on appalled at what followed.

At a school in Southport, three little girls aged six, seven and nine were murdered by a random attacker wielding a knife. Five of the eight other children who suffered stab wounds as well as two adults were left in a critical or serious condition.

The suspect who was captured was the Cardiff-born, 17 year-old son of Rwandan immigrants. At time of writing we know no more hard facts about him than that. 

But throughout yesterday X/Twitter and other social media were heaving with claims that the attacker had an Arab name, that he was a Syrian Muslim asylum-seeker and that he was on an MI6 watch list. 

None of these claims was remotely verifiable at the time, and today we have learned they were all untrue. There are reports that some of these claims originated from Russian bots or AI. Yet they were recycled all day yesterday by commentators and known influencers, demonstrably inflaming already heightened fury online.

The police made a point of announcing during the day that the attacker had been born in Cardiff. If this was an attempt to calm passions by showing that he wasn’t a Syrian asylum-seeker, it failed. The police announcement was treated with scorn.