RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272890/preventing-next-bio-terror-attack-stephen-brown

There are perhaps few weapons in existence that could cause more confusion, sickness and death in a society, undermining its very foundations, than biological ones used by terrorists. (One only has to remember the fear caused by only a small number of ‘anthrax letters’ in the weeks after 9/11.)

“Biological weapons are unique in their invisibility and their delayed effect,” wrote Stefan Riedel, a doctor, in an article on biological warfare.

A biowarfare attack would not only cause “death in a large number of victims and a paralyzing uncertainty,” Riedel also claims: “It’s goal is disruption of social and economic activity, the breakdown of government authority, and impairment of military responses.”

It is for these reasons, among others, that the United States is helping construct a safe storage facility, through its Defence Threat Reduction Agency, for Kenya’s Medical Research Institute in Kisumu City. America is paying 90 per cent of the costs.

Kenya has “multiple biological organisms” in the institute, which pose “a great threat to the community” if released accidentally or on purpose. Overall, a 2015 survey found that “Kenya stores at least 16 dangerous pathogens.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272941/uk-state-hate-report-ignores-leftist-hate-paula-boddington

The organization Hope Not Hate was founded in the UK in 2004 ‘to provide a positive antidote to the politics of hate’, in its own words. On February 18th it released its annual ‘State of Hate’ Report, described as a ‘guide to what the far right has been up to’. It is uncertain why the far left is excluded from the group’s investigation of ‘hate’; indeed, the criteria for inclusion or exclusion of the groups and individuals who figure in this report is unclear. A rag-bag of disparate groups and individuals are included, ranging from men with gripes about feminism, Nazi Satanists, and legally registered political parties.

Hope Not Hate is an influential group, frequently advising the media including TV programs, with its research often cited by academics who may then advise governments, regulators and social media companies. The ‘State of Hate’ report has had considerable media coverage. It paints a gloomy portrait of a rudderless, angry, far right which are allegedly on the rise in the UK, fueled by disenchantment with politics, and where an anti-Muslim rhetoric has replaced an anti-immigrant rhetoric.

But conducting this kind of social research is extremely complex and difficult. It’s hard enough to get a good picture of outward behavior, let alone to determine people’s true motivation and attitudes. Hope Not Hate’s report is methodologically limited and conceptually flawed, yet they exercise no caution in attributing ‘hate’ to thousands upon thousands of individuals.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13757/iran-persecution-christians

“We created a people’s army to defend the country and also help in emergencies, but it turned into a monster.” — Mohsen Sazegara, on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which he helped establish.

Under international law, the Iranian government has an obligation to respect freedom of religion. Yet, while the rights of Christians are being violated in Iran at an unprecedented level, how long will the international community remain silent?

What will it take for these endlessly preening moralists to act against those human rights violations?

The persecution of Christians in Iran in 2018 increased to a new level, according to an in-depth report jointly released by Open Doors, Middle East Concern, Article 18, and Christian Solidarity Worldwide.”The end of 2018 saw an unprecedented wave of raids on private house gatherings, leading to a large number of arrests. Many Christians received prison sentences, or had sentences upheld by the Court of Appeal,” noted the report.Despite this roaring abuse, and violations and attacks against Christians being significantly ratcheted up, the international community continues to label the Iranian government, run by President Hassan Rouhani, as “moderate.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13789/putin-iran-deception

“Talk to Iran” was tried by successive US administrations, starting with Jimmy Carter’s. In 1980, the mullahs signed an accord with Carter not to seize any more American hostages in exchange for unfreezing Iranian assets blocked by Washington after the 1979 capture of the US Embassy in Tehran. Yet, to this day, Iran has always held American hostages, and today is holding 14.

The Saudis helped Iran organize the Islamic Summit in Tehran, hoping to persuade the mullahs to become part of the normal world. They coordinated oil policies and, as a further sign of goodwill, granted Iran an unprecedented Hajj quota. The reward was the Khomeinist attack on Khobar and, later, the ransacking of the Saudi Embassy and consulates in Iran.

Now here is a scoop: Russia is about to discover the duplicity that has marked the mullahs’ diplomacy for four decades. The Caspian Sea Legal Status Convention was just a piece of paper, signed to please Putin, who now can join the club of those deceived by the mullahs. There he would find Germany’s Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, an enthusiastic novice.

“Talk to Iran!” This is the advice some Western politicians have bandied around since 1979, when the mullahs seized power in Tehran. The 40th anniversary of the Khomeinist regime has provided fresh opportunity for that slogan to be promoted again in the European Union and the United States.The argument is that the alternative to “talk to Iran” is war, something which few would desire. It is also claimed that “talk to Iran” helps a never-defined “moderate reformist faction” to defeat “hardliners” in the power struggle that has raged in the Islamic Republic from the start.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13771/france-muslims-secular-state

“If your synagogue or Jewish cemetery needs someone to stand guard, count me in. Islam requires it.” — Tayyib Rashib, former US Marine, in a tweet.

In late April 2018, thirty imams signed an open letter in the French newspaper Le Monde, in which they bitterly attacked the “confiscation of our religion by criminals” and said “ignorant, disturbed and idle” young people had become easy prey for dangerous ideologues.

Secularism is not an opinion among others, but rather the freedom to have an opinion. It is not a belief, but rather the principle authorizing all beliefs, providing they respect the principles of freedom of conscience and equal rights.

For this reason, it is neither pro- nor anti-religious.Islam has a history largely forgotten today: Schools seem largely to ignore or suppress topics related to Western-Islamic, Indian or Middle Eastern rivalries or contacts. To many modern Westerners, Islam seems to have popped up out of nowhere, from across the Mediterranean.One feature of those discarded histories is that, as Europe moved through the late Middle Ages on towards the eighteenth century, Western societies were in many ways not greatly different from those in the Islamic world.

Western laws on crime, male-female relations, education, diplomacy, slavery, punishment, the upbringing of children, and so on, were not entirely remote from those in the Muslim world. While Christians were monogamous and Muslims practised polygamy and slave concubinage, sexual relations were monitored for impropriety and punishments for extra-marital affairs were severe. The use of execution as a punishment for a range of crimes was common in both polities. What education there was tended to come from religious schooling. The long-lasting Islamic slave trade across the Sahara was eventually matched by the Transatlantic trade from Africa into North America. Western distaste for Islam was for the most part expressed in theological terms, just as Muslim distaste for Christianity seemed a mirror image of that. Both Christians and Muslims mistreated Jews, Christians more harshly on the whole. The Holocaust did not happen because of Islamic anti-Semitism.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-euro-fundamentalist/

Jean-Claude Juncker’s devotion to ‘ever closer union’ helped provoke a backlash

The caustic reaction of EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker to a series of Brexit votes in the British parliament provoked a tweet from one Conservative Brexiteer describing Juncker in anatomical language un­printable in this magazine and — oh dear — of continental origin. Her fury was proof of sorts that Juncker is in the right job.Jean Monnet, the most important founding father of what evolved into the EU, believed that only a united Europe could assure the continent’s peace and prosperity. In the absence of popular enthusiasm for such a union, it would have to be built, Monnet once remarked, “by zig and by zag,” obliquely, quietly, and by misdirection. “Of course,” observed Juncker years later, “there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?”

Sovereignty cannot be transferred to an idea. Monnet’s genius lay in establishing the essence of a government — a civil service (the commission), a court, and the precursor of a parliament — long before there was any state for it to run. The commission’s objective was to use the powers it had been given and then accumulate more, often with the connivance of politicians mistily supportive of “Europe” but unaware of the deeper significance of what they were agreeing to. As Juncker explained in a 1999 interview: “We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”