RUTHFULLY YOURS

Watch! Migrants chant “Allah Akbar!” as they approach European coastline
by Timon Dias

Hungary stands its ground on migration despite taking heat
by Vincent van den Born

Swedish cop now under investigation for inciting racial hatred after Facebook post
by Vincent van den Born

Syrian immigrant rapes two underage Swedish girls, gets away with two-month sentence
by Vincent van den Born

ECB President Draghi contradicts himself: ‘France can’t leave the euro, but Italy can’
by Willem Cornax

Leaked report: ‘Salafism in Belgium spiralling out of control’
by David Frankenhuis

Study: ‘Majority of Europeans support Muslim immigration ban’
by Vincent van den Born

92% of German ‘anti-fascist’ protesters still live with their Mum
by Benjamin de Wolf

Dr Michael Galak and his family came to Australia as refugees from the Soviet Union in 1978
The global Left rants, raves, riots and wears pink hats in its ongoing refusal to accept that Hillary Clinton isn’t president. No doubt they revel in the perverse pleasure of putting their anger and impotence on display, but they would learn more of their enemy by reading Ayn Rand.
Donald Trump’s first actions as POTUS continue to trigger unprecedented worldwide hysterics, vapours and hissy fits in progressivistas who did not get the president they had banked on seeing installed in the White House. These often grotesque convulsions bring to mind — to my mind, at any rate — the body movements of laboratory mice with electrodes implanted in the pleasure centres of their brains. The mice son learn that the simple act of pressing a lever produces the dopamine that results in uninterrupted sexual pleasure, so they press those levers to the exclusion of anything else. They don’t eat, they don’t sleep, they don’t drink. They do nothing but pleasure themselves.

There is a difference, though, between these two groups of dopamine lovers. Where pleasure-fixated mice endlessly push their laboratory levers, progressives are embracing their Trumpian pain to attain the consolation of a self-righteous and politically correct collective orgasm. Masochism? Quite probably, but drawing a perverse pleasure from displays of public agony is the only way they have left to re-assert a feeling of control over a world turned upside down, a world they can grasp but simply cannot accept. On November 7 their universe was as they thought it should be. They dominated the public pulpit, the media and universities, set and policed the topics that might be discussed and dictated how they must be discussed. Then came Trump and their comfortable intellectual environment evaporated. The satisfaction drawn from the fury of their protests is the palliative of the uncomprehending.

Angry accusations of racism, misogyny, political bullying, plus all the other deadly sins thrown at the new president, have two main sources. These people do not know how, or do not wish, to think for themselves; they depend for their opinions on the ‘authority’ of well-placed and influential intellectual gurus. This explains the cognitive dissonance sen o often on the Left; without it, how can you protest Trump’s sexism while making common cause with Islamic groups, whose sexism is wovn into their very fabric. The impending loss of this pre-programmed pattern of approved and endorsed intellectual functioning frightens and angers them. What we see, operating at a physiological or gut level, is a Pavlovian mass reflex.

And there is another source, a philosophical one, which represents the profound, fundamental and irreconcilable difference in the weltanshauunung between the progressivistas — ‘dependents’, as I call them — and creative people like Donald Trump. This source has a name, a well-formulated philosophy, a body of literature and, what’s more, a substantial following. This particular philosophy and its followers were derided, denigrated and, as often as not, prohibited by the totalitarian regimes of both the Soviets and the Nazis. Needless to say, it was hated by progressives all over the world, who accused its followers of lack of empathy, of egotism and of a refusal to follow the directives of the Politburo.

I am talking about the ‘objectivist’ philosophy founded and formulated by Ayn Rand. It appears that that author’s ideas have a staunch adherent, a man who now happens to be the President of the United Sates of America.

I strongly suspect this consideration will need to be taken into account when Australia’s relationship with the new US administration has to be re-formulated. And make no mistake, reformulated it will have to be, as the near-disastrous Turnbull phone call to Trump demonstrated with all too obvious clarity. This is not such a profound thought. However, it is a key to predicting and understanding Trump’s thinking. I speak, of course, of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, which Trump is said to regard as one of his main vectors in life.

LONDON—Members of the British Parliament’s lower house overwhelmingly gave Prime Minister Theresa May a green light to begin the country’s formal withdrawal from the European Union, leaving the government on course to begin Brexit as planned by the end of March.

The House of Commons voted 494 to 122 on Wednesday to approve a government bill authorizing it to start the divorce process. The proposals now must go before the unelected upper house, which is also expected to pass it.

“We are a democracy and we are going to do what the people voted for,” said John Penrose, a Conservative lawmaker who initially favored staying in the EU, referring to a June referendum in which Britons decided, 52% to 48%, to leave the bloc.
A parliamentary vote was once seen as so potentially contentious that the government fought against holding it, acquiescing only after the Supreme Court so ordered in a case brought by anti-Brexit activists.

But the political landscape has shifted considerably since that lawsuit was filed in July, with strong U.K. economic growth and public support for Mrs. May’s plans for a decisive break from the EU. She has said she intends to trigger exit negotiations next month.

A poll published by YouGov PLC in January found 55% of Britons broadly supported Mrs. May’s Brexit objectives. Another YouGov survey earlier this month found that Mrs. May’s Conservatives would get 40% of votes in a general election, compared with 26% for the main opposition Labour Party.

Mrs. May’s position has been strengthened by the performance of the British economy, which ended 2016 as the fastest-growing member of the Group of Seven advanced countries, defying predictions that a vote for Brexit would damp growth.

Wednesday’s win for Mrs. May in the House of Commons followed months of sparring between the government and those who oppose Brexit or want Mrs. May to cut a deal that keeps the U.K. more closely tied to the continent and the EU’s single market.

Iran Human Rights (FEB 3 2017): According to reports compiled by Iran Human Rights, the Iranian authorities hanged 87 people in the month of January 2017, including two juvenile prisoners and six prisoners who were executed in public. Out of the 87 executions, only 19 of them were announced by official Iranian sources. Most of the executions which were carrieed out in Iran in January 2017 were for drug related charges.

According to research conducted by Iran Human Rights, executions tend to significantly increase in the months leading to an election in Iran but significantly decrease or stop a couple weeks before the election. Iran Human Rights is deeply concerned that a new wave of executions have started in Iran and worries that the number of executions will increase following the “Fajr Decade” celebrations.

Iran Human Rights urges the international community, especially European countries, to pay attention to the execution crisis in Iran, and calls on all countries which have diplomatic relations with the Iranian authorities to call on the Iranian authorities to stop executions.

“In the month of January, we witnessed an average of one execution every nine hours, including two juvenile offenders and six public executions. Lack of reactions from the international community to these executions encourages the Iranian authorities to execute even more people in the months leading to the 2017 presidential election,” says Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, spokesperson for Iran Human Rights.

Critics of Germany’s open-door immigration policy are warning that the recent surge in Germany’s Muslim population — which surpassed six million in 2016 for the first time — has already changed the face of the country forever.

The price for reversing Germany’s demographic decline appears to be the further Islamization of Germany under the guise of multiculturalism.

With a fertility rate of 1.6 births per woman, well below the replacement rate of 2.1, Germany will require a permanent influx of 300,000 migrants per year in order keep the current population level stable through the year 2060, according to the report.

“We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law. German security agencies are unable to deal with these imported security problems, and the resulting reactions from the German population.” — Leaked German intelligence document.

More than a decade ago historian Bernard Lewis warned that if current migration trends continue, Europe will be Islamic by the end of the 21st century. Germany’s political elites are at the vanguard of making that prediction come true.

Germany will need to take in 300,000 migrants annually for the next 40 years to stop population decline, according to a leaked government report.

The document, parts of which were published by the Rheinische Post on February 1, reveals that the German government is counting on permanent mass migration — presumably from Africa, Asia and the Middle East — to keep the current size of the German population (82.8 million) stable through 2060.

The report implies that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to allow into the country some 1.5 million mostly Muslim migrants between 2015 and 2016 was not primarily a humanitarian gesture, but a calculated effort to stave off Germany’s demographic decline and to preserve the future viability of the German welfare state.

If most of the new migrants arriving in Germany for the next four decades are from the Islamic world, the Muslim population of Germany could jump to well over 20 million and account for more than 25% of the overall German population by 2060.

Critics of Germany’s open-door immigration policy are warning that the recent surge in Germany’s Muslim population — which surpassed six million in 2016 for the first time — has already changed the face of the country forever.

The Trump Administration needs to see to it that UN Security Council Resolution 2334 is rendered null and void.

UNSC Resolution 2334 also implies that Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter, Western Wall and Temple Mount are all occupied territory, when in fact, it was Israel that liberated them from the illegal Jordanian conquest of them in the war of 1948.

Given the history of violence which the Palestinians indulge in against the Jews, it would seem a counter-productive precedent to reward decades of terrorism and uncivilised behaviour with a state. It would also leave the Palestinians, who deserve a responsible and accountable leadership, under the domination of two corrupt and brutal governments, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

A study of the various proposals Israel has made to Palestine from time to time shows the key obstacle to peace is not the Palestinians’ demand for any piece of land but their refusal to recognize the existence of the Jewish state, or presumably any state but an Islamic one.

The U.S. could also move its embassy to Jerusalem. This would send the Palestinian leadership and others in the region a strong message that Washington will support both historical facts and countries that comport themselves with civilised behaviour.

In the long-continuing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, conventional wisdom has it that peace can be achieved through realistic negotiations between the parties to the conflict.

The previous Obama administration displayed a clear tilt towards one party to the conflict, the Palestinians, at the cost of the other, Israel.

Last month, Washington’s abstention from voting on United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2334 led to its passage. This resolution condemns Israeli settlements in “Palestinian Occupied Territories.” Resolution 2334 also implies that Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter, Western Wall and Temple Mount are all occupied territory, when in fact, it was Israel that liberated them from the illegal Jordanian conquest of them in the war of 1948. The resolution effectively states that any Jewish presence beyond the 1949 armistice lines, or Israeli construction in Judea, Samaria or Jerusalem, is illegal.

Objectively speaking, this resolution amounts to anti-Semitism: it is simply counterfactual to the Jews’ history in the region. Both the Bible and archeology reveal that Jews have had a historical connection with this land for more than 3000 years.

Given the history of violence that the Palestinians indulge in against the Jews, it would seem a counter-productive precedent to reward decades of terrorism and uncivilised behaviour with a state. It would also leave the Palestinians, who deserve a responsible and accountable leadership, under the domination of two corrupt and brutal governments, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

One hopes President Donald J. Trump, as the leader of the democratic world, would waste no time to bury this counter-factual, anti-Semitic resolution. Nikki Haley, Trump’s appointment to the United Nations, has already condemned the controversial resolution as an “outrageous bias” against Israel, and criticized the Administration of former President Barack H. Obama for the abstention that let the resolution pass.

U.S. contributions to the UN for 2015 = $9,917,000,000

Ask: Why is the U.S. still on the UN Human Rights Council?
Ask: Why has Congress not adopted a single bill stopping any funding to the UN since Security Council 2334?

In 2017, individual members of Congress and President Trump have called for a reassessment of U.S. funding to the United Nations in order to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are utilized in ways that are consistent with American values and interests.

Additionally, in the aftermath of the UN Security Council’s adoption on December 23, 2016 of resolution 2334, which declared Israel’s presence in the historic Jewish homeland and its holy sites a “flagrant violation of international law,” members of Congress have introduced a series of bills that seek to hold the UN to account for its discriminatory treatment of the Jewish state.

Members of civil society have also launched a series of initiatives challenging the current relationship of the United States with the UN and promoting a democratic multilateral alternative.

2017 Stocktaking. So far? All Talk

The last full accounting from U.S. government sources of funding provided to the United Nations is many years out-of-date. Conducted in 2010, it states that the United States contributed $7,691,822,000 annually to the United Nations in the form of assessed, voluntary and in-kind contributions.

According to United Nations sources, U.S. contributions to the UN for 2015 totaled $9,917,000,000. (UN Chief Executives Board for Coordination, Geneva) This figure has been further broken down into three (renamed) categories as follows:

Assessed contributions $3,757,000,000
Voluntary contributions specified $5,521,000,000 (this includes donations in-kind)
Voluntary contributions not specified $639,000,000.

(This UN website documents 2014 contributions and puts the total U.S. contributions for 2014 at $10,067,000,000.)

Trump’s executive order slowing down the admission of people from seven Muslim majority nations drew the expected hysterical and hypocritical criticism from the Democrats. But Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham piled on as well. It’s no secret that neither pol likes Donald Trump, and both are no doubt still angry that Trump crashed their Party. But some of their criticism recycled preposterous received wisdom we’ve been hearing for decades.

“We fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism,” the Senators said in a joint statement, explaining that Trump’s executive order “may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.” This is the tired “infidels made us do it” rationalization apologists for Islamic terrorism have been peddling––and jihadists exploiting–– since 9/11. The Senators’ version is as facile as asserting that Guantanamo, Sykes-Picot, cartoons of Mohammed, an obscure pastor burning a Koran, or Israeli settlements are responsible for “recruiting” jihadists.

This notion that Muslims become jihadist terrorists because of Western slights to their self-esteem is an absurd psychological argument alien to minds formed by Islam and its doctrines, and by cultures and histories very different from our own. Thus it commits the mortal sin of foreign policy and diplomacy: assuming that our adversaries and enemies think exactly as we do, and share the same beliefs about human motivation.

Since we attribute most behavior to material and environmental causes, we slight or dismiss religion and spiritual beliefs as a motivating force in people’s behavior. Or we reduce faith to an epiphenomenon of some deeper material cause such as poverty or a lack of political freedom, and so reduce religion to Marx’s “opiate” or Freud’s “illusion.” Even sillier, we treat other peoples as though they are over-sensitive children prone to “acting out” when their self-esteem is not nourished. So, like grade-school teachers, we should take every opportunity to tell Muslims how wonderful their faith is, how much we respect and honor it, and how diligent we will be in making sure that nobody dares link Islam and its traditional doctrines to “extremist” terror perpetrated by a small minority of “hijackers” and “distorters” of the “religion of peace.”

Obama, of course, was most fanatic about adhering to this fantasy. He began his presidency by going to Cairo and addressing a crowd, including Muslim Brotherhood honchos, about the glories of Islam and the West’s bad behavior toward the faithful. He scrupulously avoided using “Islamist” in speaking of terrorist acts, and he ordered our national security institutions not to mention “jihad” at all in its communications. The result? During his two terms there were three times more jihadist plots and attacks than during George Bush’s presidency. Al Qaeda, ISIS, and a plethora of other jihadist outfits now have a wider geographic base and scope of operations, and are perpetrating or inspiring attacks in Europe and the U.S. The world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, is now a global power punching far above its weight, and shaping the Middle East according to its interests as it continues to develop nuclear weaponry.

Such “outreach” and flattery have been no more useful than they were for the Brits in the 20’s and 30’s, when the politicians, pundits, and intellectuals championing appeasement of Germany blamed the Big Four for the “Carthaginian peace” of the Versailles Treaty, which supposedly accounted for Germany’s truculence and aggression. Then and now, such efforts communicated only weakness and fear that emboldened the aggressor and led to massive slaughter.