RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12569/guilt-museums-artifacts

“The fact is that we have no idea what would have become of the world’s ‘looted’ antiquities if they hadn’t been preserved in Western collections. Would the treasures of Beijing’s Summer palace have survived Mao’s Cultural Revolution? Would the Elgin marbles have survived Turkish tour guides chopping off chunks to sell as souvenirs? Would Daesh [ISIS] have spared those Middle Eastern artefacts that survive in European museums?” — Zareer Masani, historian.

When Christians in Iraq were exiled, murdered or persecuted en masse by the so-called Islamic State, the West stood silent — as if these Christians were the agents of Western colonialism and not the legitimate and oldest inhabitants of the Middle East, long before the Arabs converted to Islam.

When a mob destroyed the French Institute in Cairo, burning books and collections, those who now want to return the “colonial artifacts” stood silent. Where are our Monuments Men now?

A “sense of guilt” for colonialism is debasing the West from within, according to Professor Bruce Gilley, and authoritarian regimes such as Iran, Russia, China and Turkey are profiting from this weakness.

The Romans called it damnatio memoriae: the damnation of memory that resulted in destroying the portraits and even the names of the fallen emperors. The same process is now underway in the West about its colonial past. The cultural elite in the West now seem so haunted by feelings of imperialist guilt that they are no longer confident that our civilization is something to be proud of.

A sense of guilt now seems a kind of post-Christian substitute religion that seduces many Westerners. The French scholar Shmuel Trigano suggested that this ideology is turning the Westerners into “post-colonial subjects” who no longer believe in their own civilization, but instead what will destroy it: multiculturalism. In France, for example, a manifesto was launched for “a multicultural and post racial republic”. The result would be, in the words of the anthropologist Jean-Loup Amselle, a “war of identities” and a clash between communities. Last month, the UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said that, if elected Prime Minister, he would order the British Museum to return to Greece the Elgin Marbles, the frieze that had surrounded the Parthenon of Athens and one of the major attractions of the British Museum. “This whole campaign is sheer lunacy,” wrote Richard Dorment. But it is a lunacy spreading all over Europe.

French President Emmanuel Macron announced that he wants to change the rules that make French public collections untouchable, and allow the return to Africa of dozens of historical artifacts now in the Louvre Museum. Macron has appointed two commissioners, the writer Senegalese Felwine Sarr and the art expert Bénédicte Savoy, to prepare a report.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12575/britain-deradicalization-programs

The two effective initiatives were, “one defying political correctness and tackling difficult issues head-on and the other directly addressing extremism in religious [Islamic] texts.” — The Times.

Unwittingly, Home Secretary Sajid Javid showed just why the deradicalization programs he is defending do not work. He said nothing about the boy’s family’s religious faith, radical Islam or the narrative of hate and intolerance founded on a “radical” interpretation of the Quran and Sunna to which the boy may well have been exposed at home, at the mosque and over the internet.

The trouble with Javid’s tribute to those Muslims who “stand up against all forms of extremism” is that bigotry and bloodlust are not merely figments of Islamist extremists’ minds. They stem from an authentic interpretation of Quranic verses and hadiths, which currently dominates the Muslim world.

The vast majority of deradicalization programs in the UK are at best ineffective and at worst counter-productive, according to a recent study by the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT, also known as the “nudge unit”), a social purpose company partially owned by the UK government, but that works in partnership with the Cabinet Office.

As the Times reported recently, BIT examined 33 deradicalization programs across Britain, in schools, youth centers, sports clubs and English-language classes. Most of these are part of Prevent — a strategy presented in 2011 to the UK Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department — designed to keep vulnerable citizens from becoming terrorists or supporting any form of violent extremism inspired by radical Islamist or right-wing ideologies. BIT found that only two of the programs have been successful.

The main reason for the failure of the other 31 programs, according to the Times’ report on the study, is:

“…that facilitators were uncomfortable dealing with sensitive topics and would often refuse to engage if they were brought up. BIT found that teachers in particular were afraid to bring up matters of race and religion with their students without appearing discriminatory, often causing them to refuse to talk about these topics entirely.”

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/06/identity-politics-empire-debate/

For many groups, such as Copts and Jews, empires ruled by the Ottomans, Habsburgs and Britain were frequently more benign than the ethnically based nation-states that succeeded them. The plight of the East African Indians once British rule ended constitutes a clear example.

Mealtimes, “institutional racism” and the “historical amnesia of British colonialism”. They were all there on January 27 when a group of fourteen, led by students at SOAS (formerly the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London), chanting, “We have nothing to lose but our chains”, protested in the Blighty UK Café in Finsbury Park, London. They demanded that Chris Evans, the owner, “apologise to the local community” for commemorating Winston Churchill instead of presenting him as a racist who perpetuated the injustices of the empire. The café offers a breakfast called “The Winston” and décor featuring model Spitfires and a mock-up of an air-raid shelter. A change of décor and menu was demanded.

The SOAS Students’ Union, in a statement, declared that the café “exercises a concerted historical amnesia of British colonialism, which is offensive to those who continue to experience institutional racism”. Earlier, a large mural of Churchill had been repeatedly defaced. The phlegmatic Evans remarked, “If you cannot celebrate Britain and great Britons you are just erasing history and if you cannot celebrate Churchill, you cannot celebrate anyone.” In 2002 Churchill was voted the “Greatest Briton” in a large-scale BBC poll.

https://www.milsteinff.org/from-auschwitz-to-america-lessons-from-europes-killing-fi

This month, we had the privilege to learn more about the devastating and cruel truths of the Holocaust. We traveled to six countries – the Czech Republic, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Germany – with 100 leading American philanthropists and scholars, and together, we tried to wrap our heads around the scope of the genocide carried out by Nazi Germany and its European collaborators.

We saw the horrific conditions suffered by the Jews in Auschwitz-Birkenau, which were built with a single purpose: to eradicate the Jewish and Gypsy peoples. We saw mass graves in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland, where hundreds of thousands of Jewish families perished by firing squads because their gentile neighbors collaborated with or joined in when the German Killing Machine arrived. At the Rumbula Forest Memorial, we paid our respects to some of the 2.4 million Jews who were killed in the Hidden Holocaust by bullets – some, murdered by neighbors they had grown up alongside.

Far too many people view these places as simply historical sites, where you can learn something about the past, but nothing about the future. Many – including some within the Jewish community – can’t comprehend that the antisemitism that existed in Nazi Germany might happen again, especially in America.

Facing these horrors up close focused our attention on the relevance of the Holocaust to our present day. How can we ensure that Never Again isn’t just a slogan, but a mindset and an action plan?

Three lessons from our journey stand out.

First, events like the Holocaust don’t happen overnight. They result from a process of systematic racism, intimidation, and discrimination that lasts many years.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/06/sharia-stealth/

Criminalising comments deemed offensive to any religious group intimidates those who wish to freely express their ideas and opinions, a liberty our democracy has always maintained should be available to all. Such laws are antithetical to all the West represents — and all it should be defending.

The infiltration of non-Muslim countries by Islam is one of the strategies Mohammed devised when creating his ideology. His initial approach was persuasion through infiltration and, if that failed, he then adopted a military strategy through conquest and total domination. This is still Islam’s approach today. The financing of universities by Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for gaining critical leverage and massive influence has been endemic in the United States but also other Western countries, including Australia. This enables these oppressive Islamic regimes to strategically insert academics who become prominent and thus extremely influential in corrupting the minds of gullible students.

There is no Centre for Western Civilisation in Australian universities. However, there are plenty of centres dedicated to the promotion of Islamic states and societies. Take a look for instance at the Centre for Muslim States and Societies at the University of Western Australia. Its director is Samina Yasmeen (BSc Punjab, MSc Quaid-i-Azam, MA ANU, PhD Tas), a self-described expert in ‘the role of Islam in world politics’. When the media reported violent protests in Sydney by radical Muslims attacking the police, she dared to create a moral equivalence between the violence of Muslims and the so-called ‘violence’ of YouTube videos that ‘inflame emotions across the Muslim world.’[1] These videos ‘violate the special place assigned to Prophet Mohammed. Any disrespect is felt as an intrusion into this sacred space’, she said.[2]

This Muslim academic claims it is the disrespect of Islam that triggers the violent responses of radical Muslims against non-Muslims. Instead of addressing the appalling levels of intolerance and bigotry within the Muslim community, Yasmeen proposes a form of punishment of those who ‘violate’ the ‘religious feelings’ of Muslims. She argues that Australians should be forced to respect these ‘religious feelings’, which cannot be ‘invaded’ by infidels. Any criticism of Islam is, in her opinion, a primary source of Islamic terrorism and all sorts of intolerant behaviour: ‘I would argue that intentionally violating spaces sacred to Muslims or any other people falls within the space of violence. Though not obviously targeting anyone living today, deliberating inflaming emotions needs to be acknowledged as violence’, she says.[3] Yasmeen also talks about ‘coordinating financial sanctions’ that ‘could help the Muslims deal with such attacks on religions feelings’. In order to ‘help Muslims to deal with such attacks on religious feeling’, a form of Sharia law by stealth should be imposed:

A billion dollar lawsuit against those who target religious beliefs, and engage in intense violation of sacred spaces, would shift the whole discussion to a different place. Even if the courts throw out the suit, it would focus attention on legal pathways to oppose such violence aimed at space that is sacred for a quarter of humanity. It may even create pathways that counter violence of this kind. [4]

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12614/netherlands-burqa-ban

“People’s faces should not be hidden in society, for it is our faces that give us our identity and our fundamental means of communication with others.” — Geert Wilders, Party for Freedom (PVV).

Dutch Interior Minister Kajsa Ollongren said the new law represents “a fair balance” between “the freedom to dress as one wishes” and “the general interest of communication and security.” She also said that far from violating fundamental rights, the ban will enable Muslim women “to have access to a wider social life” because if they do not cover the face “they will have more possibilities for contact, communication and opportunities to enter the job market.”

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) twice has ruled that burqa bans are legal, making it unlikely that the Dutch ban could be overturned in court.

The Dutch Senate has approved a law that bans the wearing of “face-covering clothing” in public buildings, including hospitals, schools and government offices, as well as on public transportation.

Although the ban does not extend to public streets, the law authorizes police to ask individuals to remove face-covering clothing to establish their identity.

Those found flouting the ban — which includes Islamic veils and robes such as burqas (which cover the entire face) and niqabs (which cover the entire face except for the eyes), as well as balaclavas and full-face helmets — will be subject to a fine of 410 euros ($475).

The new law, previously adopted by the Dutch House of Representatives in November 2016, was approved on June 26 by 44 to 31 votes in the 75-seat Senate.

In a statement, the government, which has not yet said when the law will enter into effect, explained its purpose:

“In a free country like the Netherlands, everyone has the freedom and space to behave and dress as he or she desires. Sometimes, limits can and must be imposed on that freedom. In the case of face-covering clothing, this applies in particular if mutual communication is impeded or safety is jeopardized.

“Mutual communication whereby people can look each other in the face is so important that uniform rules have now been laid down by law. This makes it clear to everyone what is and is not allowed in those situations.”

A Muslim activist group called “Stay away from my Niqab!” said the ban is unconstitutional. In an open letter sent to Dutch lawmakers, the group, which has more than 5,000 followers on Facebook, asked:

“Why is it not realized that this law leads to people being isolated from society? This ban leads to women who wear face-covering clothing, who like to participate in society, no longer to be able to do this effectively because they now have a restriction on education, license applications, travel with public transport, visiting a doctor and much more….

“Is the constitution no longer applicable to women with face-covering clothing? What about the right that everyone is free to dress how he/she wants, regardless of race, gender, religion or belief?

“What about Article 6 of the Constitution which sets out freedom of religion and belief? Is there a problem in which everyone does not have the right freely to confess their religion or belief, individually or in community with others?”

The group’s spokeswoman, Karima Rahmani, added:

“We feel that we are being wronged with a repressive measure, which is why we trying to make our voices heard. It is getting harder and harder to be on the street with a niqab. I myself have been threatened with death, and other women have even been physically attacked.

http://www.settimananews.it/italia-europa-mondo/migranti-francia-la-ue/

It is France—not Germany, Italy, or any other country on the old continent—that can decide today what will happen to the young but already troubled European Union. The EU is under siege.

There is a medium-term threat to the EU which is about the future of the single currency, endangered on a thousand fronts. Even though it is not in the eurozone, with the Brexit, Britain will shake the single market and the single currency; Italy poses the problem of reforming the economic and financial institutions of the EU; Germany and its northern partners are pulled by isolationist drives.

But these are medium-term issues, which will come to the fore next year after the Brexit becomes official and the elections of the European Parliament in 2019. In the short term, it is the urgent issue of migration that is breaking the continent asunder, and here perhaps it is France that has many of the solutions. And the vote on Brexit was about migrants not about the single market or the single currency.

The wave of migration from Africa arrives in Europe mainly via Libya, but also from Morocco and Algeria. In the last two countries, there is still a strong French influence, and in Libya France and Italy compete over influence.

From here, the northern shores of Africa, the migrants make the last leap, the least dangerous one, crossing the Mediterranean to land in Malta, Italy, Spain, or Portugal, and from there they may move further north. However, the migrants have already made most the dangerous and difficult jump, through a path of death and slavery in the Sahara desert. It is in Mali, Niger, and Chad that the black African migrants converge. These countries are historically under French influence, and even though recently a new Italian presence has arrived, it has not undermined the French one.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12606/tehran-lobbyists

The pro-Khomeinist chorus builds its case on an abstract notion in which, in dealing with the Islamic Republic, the choice is only between surrendering to its every whim or total military invasion.

The same lobbyists discourage any attempt by the major powers to adopt a policy aimed at helping, persuading and cajoling Iran into restoring its identity as a nation-state and behave like one by closing the chapter of a revolution that has plunged Iran and a good chunk of the Middle east into conflict and uncertainty.

As the clock ticks towards 8th of August, the deadline fixed by US President Donald Trump to unveil the next stage of his policy towards Iran, a choir of Western politicians, academics and businessmen is formed to urge him to stick to the policies of his predecessors since 1979. That, in turn, has encouraged elements in the Tehran leadership to argue against any change of policy and/or behavior by the Islamic Republic on a range of issues, as spelled out in US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s 12-point statement, including the attempt to “export” revolution to Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain and Yemen among others.

Last Tuesday Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif replied to Pompeo with a 15-point desiderata of his own, indicating Tehran’s choice of a delaying tactic.

The pro-Khomeinist chorus builds its case on an abstract notion in which, in dealing with the Islamic Republic, the choice is only between surrendering to its every whim or total military invasion.

In her latest book “Fascism: A Warning” former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright reduces policy in Iran to a simple question: “Do we want to repeat the adventure in Iraq?”