RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=190868&sec_id=190868

[This article is translated from the original French by the author. The article is a response to the debate in France on legislation that will extend access to PMA, Procréation Médicalement Assistée (or ART, Assisted Reproduction Technology) to lesbian couples and single women in France.]

Isn’t it heartless to block the flow of such tender desires? Where is the “why” strong enough to answer the “why not?”

        Society is about to assume divine powers to compensate for the stinginess of a God who’s lost His glory. Enthusiasts only count the positive side of the calculation: the 1 + 1 = 2 love of the same-sex couple + their love for the wanted child cancels the minus-one of the father. And the absent mother of the child born by gestation pour autrui, known as GPA (inevitable authorization of surrogate motherhood) will be compensated by the sweet tale of the sperm-donator and the womb-lender, venerated like the mythical genitors of an ancient people.

        How should we calculate the deliberate deprivation for the child born of these equations, of splendid male/female dynamics? Militants of the cause write it off as a sustainable loss. The father or mother of a “conventional” couple can disappear by accident or by choice, n’est-ce pas? So, it’s doable. No room for old-fashioned sexual differentiation hang-ups. Move over, buddy!

        Transgenderism helps erase the father + mother = child formula by positing a range of possibilities that denies the essential difference between a man and a woman. An ill-defined aberration—dysphoria—becomes a sort of state of mind that will be soothed by “medical treatment” (that has nothing to do with healthcare), boosted by a proselyte ideology that seeps into society as a whole.

        In one of the more grotesque variations on the theme, we have the “man” that claims to be the father and/ or mother of the child carried in the uterus she kept, at least temporarily, during the male-to-female transition.

https://theettingerreport.com/islamic-arab-terrorists-bite-the-hands-that-feed-them/

The extension of US gestures and concessions to Islamic terrorists, and the waiving of a US military option while negotiating with Iran’s regime of terror, are perceived as weakness by terrorists, adversaries and allies of the US. 

Such a policy ignores, or takes lightly, the objective and well-documented 1,400 year old past track record of Islamic terrorism, while emphasizing the subjective and speculative future track record of terrorists.

Such a policy erodes the US posture of deterrence, which is a prerequisite to the minimization of global turbulence, undermining US interests in the international arena, while bringing the threat of Islamic terrorism closer to the US mainland.

Such a policy is based on the assumption that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, and the need to dwell on the despair (diplomatically and economically) rather than dealing with terrorism (militarily). However, Islamic terrorism has been driven – since the 7th century – by the imperialistic religious vision to establish a universal Islamic society, dominating the world and subordinating the “infidel” to Islam, peacefully or militarily.

Such a policy is based on the assumption that Islamic terrorism is driven by US policy. However, Islamic terrorism has haunted the US since the late 18th century, during Democratic and Republican Administrations (e.g., the Obama and Trump Administrations).
For example:

*During the 1980s, it was US diplomatic, financial and military assistance which enabled the Mujahideen to drive the USSR out of Afghanistan. But, Mujahideen-related Islamic terrorists reacted in an anti-US terrorist offensive, which has persisted since 1996, culminating on September 11, 2001.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17839/turkey-airstrikes-syria-iraq

Turkey appears to be maneuvering to expand an Islamic state in Syria and Iraq.

The same Turkish government that claims to counter “terrorism” through its fight against the Kurdish PKK has supported ISIS in the region for years.

“The ability of ISIS to become a functioning state so quickly is largely due to its relationship with President Erdoğan in Turkey.” — Dr. Mordechai Kedar, BESA Center, October 11, 2020.

The Turkish government — a member of NATO — clearly seems to feel itself on a jihadist roll.

Since the Taliban’s violent takeover of Afghanistan on August 15, Turkey has increased its expansionist military activities in the Middle East in a way that is significantly impacting the lives of minorities.

Turkey appears to be maneuvering to expand an Islamic state in Syria and Iraq.

Turkey has so far been using its fight against the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) as an excuse to justify its military aggression, destruction and casualties of persecuted minorities. Among those communities affected by Turkish military actions in Iraq and Syria are Yazidis, Assyrians and Kurds — communities previously targeted by ISIS and al-Qaeda.

On August 17, in Iraq, the Turkish military carried out an airstrike on a hospital in Sinjar Province, where the Yazidi minority had already been victim of a genocide in 2014 at the hands of ISIS.

The raid, consisting of three drone strikes, “totally destroyed” the makeshift hospital in the village of Sekaina. A doctor in Sinjar said that at least three people had been killed and five others wounded. A senior Iraqi army officer told AFP that the raid had been carried out by Turkey’s military. Another Turkish air strike on August 16 targeted and killed a senior Yazidi leader, Hassan Saeed.

Assyrian Christians, another persecuted indigenous minority in Iraq, are also suffering from Turkish airstrikes. In a 2021 report , “Caught in the Crossfire: Assyrians and the Turkey-PKK Conflict in Iraq,” by the Assyrian Policy Institute, reported:

“Turkish strikes in northern Iraq have caused irreparable and costly damage to civilian properties and agricultural lands… The destruction to private property and farmland caused by Turkish airstrikes effectively robs Assyrian farmers of their livelihoods and immediately threatens their ability to stay in their homes and villages.”

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2021/10/virtuous-fantasies-of-fascism/

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2021/10/virtuous-fantasies-of-fascism/

“The doctrinaires entering our education systems are as termites in a wooden building, peddling the view that if you do not ‘celebrate’ some proclivity or other, or publicly expatiate on its virtues, then you must be keen on persecuting those who exhibit it. It is simple notion for the simple minds of those who find the world just too complex to grasp.”

When I mentioned to some friends that I was about to pay a short trip to Hungary, they were all duly horrified. It was as if I had announced in late August 1939 that I was going on holiday in Germany.

I readily confess that my knowledge of current Hungarian politics is very limited. I know four words in the language: please, thank you, water and national. This does not entitle me to pose as an expert, even though I know infinitely more Hungarian than did my horrified friends.

There was something formulaic about their horror, if I may so put it, a bit like the sign of the cross for those who do not truly believe but yet are attached to ancient customs. They had heard that Hungary was a fascist country, the kind of country that, according to the Dutch Prime Minister, should have no place in the European Union. Of course, he took that to mean that it was not virtuous, or not virtuous enough.

I had been to Budapest several times before: it is undoubtedly one of the most pleasant capitals in Europe, grand and dignified but not overwhelmingly large. I first went in 1970, when no one was horrified by my proposed journey: it was merely a communist state, that was all, and therefore not the object of obloquy.

Even then, the food was better than in other communist countries, but the greyness and dilapidation were evident. For the first and only time in my life I had difficulty in spending all the money that I had. One had to change irrevocably a certain amount of money to be allowed to enter Hungary, and by the end of my stay I was left with a bundle of forints that I could neither change nor take out of the country (not that anyone outside the country would have wanted them).

When I mentioned to some friends that I was about to pay a short trip to Hungary, they were all duly horrified. It was as if I had announced in late August 1939 that I was going on holiday in Germany.

I readily confess that my knowledge of current Hungarian politics is very limited. I know four words in the language: please, thank you, water and national. This does not entitle me to pose as an expert, even though I know infinitely more Hungarian than did my horrified friends.

There was something formulaic about their horror, if I may so put it, a bit like the sign of the cross for those who do not truly believe but yet are attached to ancient customs. They had heard that Hungary was a fascist country, the kind of country that, according to the Dutch Prime Minister, should have no place in the European Union. Of course, he took that to mean that it was not virtuous, or not virtuous enough.

I had been to Budapest several times before: it is undoubtedly one of the most pleasant capitals in Europe, grand and dignified but not overwhelmingly large. I first went in 1970, when no one was horrified by my proposed journey: it was merely a communist state, that was all, and therefore not the object of obloquy.

Even then, the food was better than in other communist countries, but the greyness and dilapidation were evident. For the first and only time in my life I had difficulty in spending all the money that I had. One had to change irrevocably a certain amount of money to be allowed to enter Hungary, and by the end of my stay I was left with a bundle of forints that I could neither change nor take out of the country (not that anyone outside the country would have wanted them).

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17798/arabs-annoyed-with-europeans

The European Parliament… has enraged many Arabs by calling for boycotting Expo 2020 Dubai…

The timing of the resolution is problematic. It implies that the European Parliament is seeking to punish the UAE for signing a peace treaty with Israel. The resolution coincided with the first anniversary of the signing of the Abraham Accords, the term used to refer to peace agreements between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain.

By singling out the UAE, the European Parliament has chosen to side with the enemies of peace, cooperation and normalization between Israelis and Arabs.

Worse, the European Parliament saw no reason to call out Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad for their daily human rights violations against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Resolutions such as the one taken by the European Parliament are the kind that give the enemies of peace in the Middle East — evidently now including the European Parliament — ammunition to keep fighting to achieve their goal of destroying Israel.

They are opposed to the existence of Israel. They do not want to see Israel in the Middle East. Most of them want to replace Israel….

“[The decision] raises a question mark about the real reasons that led to this hostility practiced by the European Parliament towards a country that has achieved a lot on human rights issues…. The European Parliament is supposed to support these issues, not the exact opposite.” — Mona Ali Al Motawa, prominent writer from Bahrain, Al-Watan, September 21, 2021.

[T]he UAE does not need “a certificate [of honor] from malicious entities and will not be affected by desperate attempts to disrupt its achievements.” — Saudi columnist Dr. Ali Al-Kheshaiban, Al-Ain, September 22, 2021.

Some very vocal Arabs, in short, are loudly telling the Europeans to mind their own business.

The Arabs are also telling the Europeans that if they have to meddle in the internal affairs of the Arab countries, they should at least support those states, such as the UAE, that have made real strides in human rights, rather than supporting and emboldening terrorists through calls for the boycott of global cooperation events.

The European Parliament, one of three legislative branches of the European Union, has enraged many Arabs by calling for a boycott of Expo 2020 Dubai, taking place in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) between October 2021 and March 2022.

The theme of this year’s Expo 2020 Dubai, one of the world’s biggest events, is “Connecting Minds, Creating the Future.” The sub-themes are “Sustainability, Opportunity and Mobility” with a focus on industries, financial capital, governance, employment, education, and technology.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17830/china-growing-maritime-empire

While on the face of it, China’s acquisitions of ports looks like mere commercial transactions based on an economically driven agenda — the rhetoric China is employing — several analysts have pointed out that geopolitical concerns seem to be what are actually driving China’s port investments.

“A deliberate military and strategic functionality seems clearly entrenched in the initiative [acquisition of ports] ….there is abundant evidence it is developing a network of strategic strongpoints that can significantly raise the costs of any U.S. military intervention and lower the willingness of BRI [port] host governments to offer access or assistance to the United States.” — Daniel R. Russell and Blake H. Berger, “Weaponizing the Belt and Road Initiative,” Asia Society Policy Institute, September 2020.

“U.S. naval vessels might not be able to call regularly at ports under Chinese management because of the risk that commercial port information-technology (IT) systems could be used to monitor or interfere with military systems and jeopardize U.S. information and cybersecurity.” — Admiral Gary Roughead, US Navy Chief of Naval Operations, Naval War College Review, Winter 2019.

For that reason, the US warned Israel that China’s management of the new Haifa port terminal could potentially damage US-Israeli security cooperation, as it might lead to US Navy ships refraining from docking there.

“By creating a global port network for ostensibly commercial purposes, China has gained the ability to project power through the increased physical presence of its naval vessels—turning the oceans that historically have protected the United States from foreign threats into a venue in which China can challenge U.S. interests.” — Christopher R. O’Dea, Naval War College Review, Winter 2019.

Another grave concern is that Chinese port investments create economic and political leverage for the CCP that can affect local policy and decision making… After China invested in and acquired much of the port of Piraeus, Greece blocked an EU statement criticizing China’s human rights record…. prevented a unified EU statement against China’s behavior in the South China Sea… and opposed tougher screenings of Chinese investments in Europe — a predictable move for all nations that become beholden to Chinese investments.

China, through investments in and ownership of ports, is expanding its global maritime reach, and its appetite for ports shows no signs of diminishing. As of July 2020, Chinese firms reportedly “(partly) owned or operated some ninety-five ports across the globe.”

Out of the 95 ports, 22 are in Europe, 20 in the Middle East and North Africa, 18 in the Americas, 18 in South and Southeast Asia, and nine in sub-Saharan Africa. Just three Chinese companies, among them COSCO Shipping Ports and China Merchants Port, two central state-owned enterprises (SOE), account for the operations of 81% of those ports.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17829/afghanistan-taliban-terroris

The most worrying concerns, though, about the Taliban’s ability to rein in the activities of Islamist terror groups stem from the composition of the new Afghan government which, far from reflecting the Taliban’s claim that it is pursuing a “moderate” agenda, is packed with hardliners and includes no women, minorities or opposition members.

In particular, the appointment of Sirajuddin Haqqani, a prominent member of the infamous Haqqani network who is on the FBI’s most wanted list and is a designated global terrorist, completely undermines the Taliban’s claim that it wants to curb the activities of Islamist terrorists.

More recently the group has been building ties with ISIS-K. As Sajjan Gohel, international security director at the Asia-Pacific Foundation, wrote in a recent article for Foreign Policy magazine, “There has, in fact, been a tactical and strategic convergence between the Islamic State-Khorasan and the Haqqanis, if not the entirety of the Taliban.”

At the time of the Taliban takeover, Pakistan’s pro-Islamist Prime Minister Imran Khan rejoiced at America’s humiliating defeat in Afghanistan. Now he finds himself facing a battle for survival in Islamabad as militant supporters of the so-called “Pakistani Taliban” seek to emulate the achievements of their Afghan neighbours by overthrowing the Pakistani government.

As seen this morning with the bombing of the Eidgah Mosque in Kabul, leaving a reported 8 people killed and 20 wounded, the prospects of Afghanistan once more becoming a safe haven that can be used by Islamist terrorist groups to launch deadly attacks against the West have risen dramatically in the wake of US President Joe Biden’s disastrous decision to withdraw American forces from the country. Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack on Saturday through its Nasheer news agency on Telegram.

Part of Mr Biden’s justification for ending America’s 20-year-old involvement in the conflict was that the Taliban had learnt the lessons of its past involvement with Islamist terror groups like al-Qaeda, and would therefore be unlikely to allow them to operate freely in territory under Taliban control.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17826/prowler-preaching-neighborliness

Raisi has not managed to impose some discipline on the few hundred mullahs and brigadier-generals who form the core of the ramshackle regime. Thus the mullah from back of the beyond and the brigadier-general who has never seen a battle except on television, continue to make foreign policy comments mostly to threaten the very neighbors that the Dr. Ayatollah hopes to seduce.

Tehran’s disregard for Iraqi sovereignty came in other forms as well. The official media threatened Baghdad and Erbil with “consequences” unless those who had organized a private seminar on normalization with Israel were “dealt with”. The fact that the seminar in question was in conformity with Iraq’s constitution and law, guaranteeing freedom of opinion and expression, was conveniently ignored.

However, the biggest show of “good neighborliness” promised by Raisi came inside the (former Soviet) Republic of Azerbaijan and along its borders with Iran and Armenia.

What Tehran media described as “a multi-faceted task force” consisting of helicopter gunships, tanks, armored vehicles and elite Special Units under the personal command of IRGC’s Chief of Land Forces Gen. Pakpur was assembled on full alert within sight of Azerbaijani troops and their Russian “advisers”.

In his first statements on foreign policy, Islamic Republic’s new President Dr. Ayatollah Ebrahim Raisi made two claims: First that he would be the ultimate arbiter of Tehran’s foreign relations and, second, that his top priority is to “establish close ties with neighbors and promote peace and stability in West Asia.

(The ruling mullahs now use the term West Asia, which was circulated by the Soviet Union, instead of the Middle East, which they regard as a term coined by “Infidel powers.”)

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17825/nuclear-armed-iran

General Hossein Salami, the chief of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has made the Iranian regime’s plans vehemently clear: “Our strategy is to erase Israel from the global political map,” he stated on Iran’s state-controlled Channel 2 TV in 2019. Supreme Leader Khamenei, in 2015, also published a 416-page guidebook, titled “Palestine”, about destroying Israel.

“The mission of the constitution is to create conditions conducive to the development of man in accordance with the noble and universal values of (Shiite) Islam.” The regime’s constitution goes on to say that it “provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the revolution at home and abroad.”

There is the dangerous likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Iran’s proxy and militia groups, or that the Iranian regime will share its nuclear technology with its proxies and allies such as the Syrian regime or the Taliban in Afghanistan.

If this is how Iran’s leadership treats its own citizens, what makes anyone think they would treat their perceived adversaries any better? As others have asked: If Hitler had acquired a nuclear weapon, do you think he would have hesitated to use it?

Once such leaders have weapons of mass destruction, it is far more costly in life and treasure to try and stop them. Iran might not even need to use its nuclear weapons; the threat should be more than enough.

The Iranian regime is nearing an atomic milestone in acquiring nuclear weapons. In the meantime, the Biden administration does not seem to have a clear agenda to prevent the mullahs from going nuclear. Even the New York Times reported that the Islamic Republic is “within roughly a month of having enough material to fuel a single nuclear weapon”.