RUTHFULLY YOURS

It is worth investigating the labour practices of the host country, Qatar, which are certainly in breach of even previous European legislation, let alone the UK’s Modern Slavery Act and European equivalents.

Qatar offered bribes to FIFA to be able to get the right to host the event, according to Greg Dyke, former Chairman of the British Football Association, and other BFA officials.

The Guardian reported that Nepalese migrant workers in Qatar are dying at the rate of one every two days. Recent visitors to Qatar have taken photographs of the appalling squalor in which foreign construction workers live — forced to sleep in tiny cell-like rooms in which they barely have room to lie down. There are no proper sanitary or kitchen facilities.

In Qatar, the new law will only apply — if applied at all — to foreigners who took up employment after the law was passed,

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph on July 31, Britain’s new prime minister, Theresa May, stated, “Last year I introduced the world-leading Modern Slavery Act to send the strongest possible signal that victims were not alone and that those responsible for this vile exploitation would face justice”. Yet these campaigns to tackle modern slavery carefully overlook the countries in the Arab world in which slave-ownership is permitted by the legislation.

In 2015, the Modern Slavery Act came into British law to address heightened levels of human trafficking (now considered by criminals to be more lucrative than drug-smuggling) and the treatment of many of the servants of wealthy foreigners.Like their wealthy employers, these indentured servants are shepherded straight from an incoming flight to a car waiting on the tarmac, and do not pass through immigration or customs. They are not treated like the rest of us — the supremely wealthy and their employees live under different laws. As such, cases of servant mistreatment rarely get to be heard in court. The few cases that go to trial are the result of these servants escaping the clutches of their “employers,” and the stories they tell are horrific (albeit largely unpunished and unreported for political reasons).

One example was documented in the Daily Mail on March 15, 2011. An African servant was forced to sleep on the floor, a situation she endured at first for £10 a month “wages” until her employer, a female doctor of Asian origin, decided not to pay her anything at all.

The most significant aspect of this year’s Arab League conference was the downgrading in significance of Palestinian issues on the agenda.

The community of Arab states is bereft of the confidence to act collectively in its own interests, and has a fearful inability to meet the challenge of either Iran or radical Islamic terrorism, which threaten the very existence of their regimes.

The Arab League concluded its 27th annual summit on July 28 in Nouakchott, Mauritania. The sessions exposed the deep divisions in the Arab world, the bloc’s decreased influence in regional affairs, and the declining importance of Palestinian issues in the Middle East.

The annual affair apparently failed to make progress on last year’s Saudi proposal to establish an all-Arab, multinational force in response to Iran’s aggressive policies in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. The Nouakchott-hosted sessions also seem to have made no progress toward developing a unified anti-terrorist agenda. The growth of the Islamic State presence in Libya and elsewhere in North Africa was evidently a prime motivator for the perceived need for an anti-terrorism policy.

Despite the evident failure of leftist social theory, so-called ‘establishment’ conservatives have failed to re-shape popular culture. One explanation is that ‘establicons’ blithely accept the moral authority of the ideas upon which their opponents’ ideology is founded.
That a profound malaise has struck conservative thought throughout the contemporary West, particularly across the Anglosphere, is an axiom of the political zeitgeist. Strong circumstantial evidence of this is the peculiar situation in which political outsiders – sometimes obvious non-conservatives such as Wilders in the Netherlands or Trump in the United States – successfully express anxieties that would ordinarily define the fears and aspirations of the electoral centre-right, but which are systematically censored from the political debate by the candidates of more ‘respectable’ parties in the so-called ‘moderate’ centre.

Recent attempts to revitalise opposition to the ‘progressive’ behemoth have obtained mixed results: Despite receiving almost 13 per cent of the popular vote at the last general elections, UKIP won one seat while losing another, and thus failed to increase its strength in the House of Commons beyond a single MP. Even as the third largest electoral force in British politics, the party’s recent and decisive defeat in the Oldham West and Royton by-election dampened any enthusiastic predictions of an imminent shift in the party-political culture of Albion. Meanwhile, faux-conservatives in Canada have been vanquished by the son of an iconic ’60s progressive statesman, New Zealand’s conservative government has assimilated leftist policies for the sake of perceived electoral ‘relevance’, less than impressive candidates for the US Republican presidential elections have been consistently overshadowed by an outsider whose political future remains hotly debated, and Australia’s maverick Senator Cory Bernardi, despite being widely popular among core constituencies of the popular centre-right, remains largely isolated form his governing party’s power centre (for now).

Conversely, the recent elections in Poland have seen the literal eviction of all explicitly leftist parties from its houses of parliament, ushering in a new era in which ex- and post-communists have been wholly ejected from the country’s executive and lawmaking branches for the first time in history. The President and Premier (Andrzej Duda and Beata Szydło respectively) have wasted no time in preparing sweeping reforms, appointments and changes to the administrative sector, security apparatus and the nation’s Constitutional Tribunal, perhaps paving a way to a national renovation similar to that of its southern neighbour, Hungary.[1] With the earlier victory and consolidation of Budapest’s conservative government under Viktor Orbán, this represents an interesting trend towards a nationally assertive right at least in Central Europe, where a genuine third way seems to be gaining popular traction against the cultural imperialism of Brussels and the political imperialism of a revanchist Moscow.

Given the different social background to each of these electoral phenomena, immediate comparisons can only be superficial, necessarily reductionist and may therefore lead a policy analyst to error when attempting to devise a unified theory of how best to confront the political left at the ballot box. No such unified theory exists because local politics are always a function of the local people, their specific history and particular culture. However, glimmers of reactionary success anywhere across the turbulent social landscape of the West can illustrate that, to borrow from the parlance of the revolutionary agitators of decades past: another world – is indeed – possible.

Speaking to Polish television, a former member of Poland’s counter-terror police and an academic expert on information warfare and terrorism have articulated their concern about the intellectual and spiritual collapse of European civilisation, remarking it is “at the end of its existence”.

Former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBS) officer Jacek Wrona and military history academic Dr. Rafa³ Brzeski were guests on the Polish TVP Info programme discussing the Munich shooting in which nine were killed, and were forced to conclude it was a symptom of the end of European Civilisation. Information warfare expert Dr. Brzeski rejected the suggestion in German media that the Munich killer — an 18 year old Muslim — was mad, pointing out the killing had “an element of planning”, reports wPolityce.

As for the treatment of the attack in the mainstream media, the academic said it was a case of the “ministry of propaganda at work… it is self-censorship. There is nothing worse than self-censorship in journalism”. Rejecting the reluctance of mainstream media to recognise the killings as a terrorism, he said: “this is definitely an act of terror… the execution of an act of terrorism. He was setting out to scare people, and that is an act of terror”.

Pre-empting the emergency press conference held by German Chancellor Angela Merkel in which she said her government stood by its policies and decisions which helped create the migrant crisis, and recognising the frustration of the German people with this approach, the academic remarked: “The Germans have had enough of this, which does not mean the government has had enough. These are two different approaches”.

PARIS—After his capture in Belgium, the Paris terror suspect Salah Abdeslam was transferred to a prison cell in France where the paint on the walls was still fresh.

Prison staff had spent three weeks renovating the space, bolting down furniture and installing video cameras to make sure the 26-year-old’s solitary confinement went smoothly, said Marcel Duredon, a guard at Fleury-Mérogis, the high-security facility on the outskirts of Paris.

Still, the measures did little to calm the ruckus that erupted in the cell blocks as dusk fell and word spread about the prison’s newest inmate, the last surviving suspect in the Nov. 13 attacks.

“Some welcomed him as the messiah,” Mr. Duredon said.

The rise of Islamic State has caught Europe’s prison systems flat-footed. Convicted terrorists, some of whom serve prison terms as brief as two years, sit atop the social pecking order in facilities like Fleury-Mérogis.

Many use jail time to forge ties with petty criminals from the predominantly Muslim suburbs that ring European cities, authorities say, grooming them for jihad missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria—or attacks at home.

Now the return over the past year of an unprecedented number of jihadists from Islamic State territory is placing European prisons in an even bigger bind. To keep militants off the streets, authorities are throwing many of them in jail, but that is injecting battle-hardened radicals into overcrowded prisons. Researchers estimate that 50% to 60% of the roughly 67,000 inmates in the French prison system are Muslims, who represent just 7.5% of the general population.

Prison officials are also faced with a difficult choice between absorbing hardened militants into the general prison population, where they might radicalize others, or to concentrate them in special wards where they may be better able to hatch plots.

“We’re sitting on a time bomb,” says Adeline Hazan, who heads a state agency tasked with auditing French prisons. CONTINUE AT SITE

And the first thing Western leaders will say is, “No, you did not actually do this because you’re a Muslim. You did this because you’re poor, or disenfranchised, or discriminated against. We need to give you a job and some cash, and all will be well.”https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/germany-because-i-am-a-muslim-media-cover-up-as-afghan-smashes-up-church

The second thing they will say is, “More migrants. Bring us more!” The mainstream media, by covering up such incidents, aids in the migrant importation enterprise by keeping the public as ignorant as possible about the devastation the Muslim migrants are causing.

Because I am Muslim

“‘Because I am a Muslim’: Media cover-up in Germany as Afghan smashes up church,” Diversity Macht Frei, July 29, 2016:

It happened a week ago, but the police kept quiet about the incident and the church management did not file a complaint, it has only just come out: last Friday a 19-year-old Afghan stormed into the Versöhnungskirche [Church of Reconciliation] at around 7.20 pm in an open community evening in the Eilbek district of Hamburg. He threw chairs and benches around, kicked over a Bible stand, splintered the glass and threw hymn books onto the ground. According to an eye-witness, the church-goes present were very afraid and let him continue his destruction. No wonder, he was wearing swirling Islamic dress, which might have hidden a suicide belt.

The Muslim did not speak during his destructive rage and also had no connections to Salafists, therefore the State Protection department of the state criminal prosecution agency assumes there was no “Islamist” motive.

…Eyewitness Peter H, who sent PI the photo of the Afghan attacker, reports that he asked the Muslim in front of the church why he had done it as he ended his affray. The Afghan then screamed the answer: “Because I am a Muslim!”

Jihad Report
Jul 23, 2016 –
Jul 29, 2016
Attacks 48
Killed 409
Injured 700
Suicide Blasts 9
Countries 13

Ali David Sonboly, the young man who shot up Munich last week, killing 9 mostly young people and wounding dozens of others, is driving the mainstream media nuts. It’s so bad, they can’t even decide what they want to call him. Is it Ali David Sonboly, or David Ali Sonboy, or just David Sonboy, as the primly and properly PC BBC tried to have it?

But now it’s really getting confusing. As this article from the Mirror, among many others, now reports, Sonboly “reportedly saw it as an ‘honour’ that he had the same birthday as the Nazi leader [Hitler] – April 20,” “was proud to be a German-Iranian ‘Aryan,’” and “felt ‘superior’ to those of either [Turk or Arab] origin.” These discoveries greatly aggravate the already severe disorientation that the MSM has suffered over his motives. It seems that some among them think Sonboly was a neo-Nazi Irano-Aryan acolyte of Breivik – anything, please, but a Muslim.

So, was this young man just a “lazy” and “chubby” misfit who moved from depression to derangement and then obsession with mass murder for fascist reasons, or was he acting out of some influence of radical Islam? Or aren’t both possible?

Let’s go back to the Mirror’s points and unpack them, particularly for the benefit of those in the MSM who have delicate sensibilities about all things Islamic and Muslim and who avert their eyes from anything critical of their precious pet community. Here are some rather simple points from Islamic history.

Islamism, the revivalist version of Islam supported by large numbers of Muslims worldwide, borrows heavily from both communism and fascism. Eric Hoffer explained all that back in the 1950s. More explicitly, there were close historical alliances between the Nazis and the radical Muslims of the day. Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, had ties to Hitler, helped Himmler recruit Muslim troops for the SS, and collaborated with the Nazis on paramilitary operations in the Mideast. In recent times, Muslim clerics have praised the Nazis’ extermination of Jews even while trying to deny the Holocaust. At the same time, the Iranian government has regularly indulged in Holocaust denial while holding Israel and Jews to be anathema. It should therefore not be surprising that someone proud of his Muslim heritage should also feel proud of sharing a birthday with Hitler – while still having nothing the do with the bête noir of the Left, the political “far Right.”

Turkey’s countless agreements with Western organizations do not seem to have reduced the hatred for Christians there.

In Turkey, it is “ordinary people” who murder or attack Christians, then the judiciary or political system somehow find a way of enabling the perpetrators to get away with the crimes. Most of these crimes are not covered by the international media and Turkey is never held responsible.

While Muslims are pretty much free to practice their religion and express their views on other religions anywhere in the world, Christians and other non-Muslims can be killed in Turkey and other Muslim-majority countries just for attempting peacefully to practice their religion or openly express their views.

“Multiculturalism,” which is passionately defended by many liberals in the West, could have worked wonders in multi-ethnic and multi-religious places such as Anatolia. But unfortunately, Islamic ideology allows only one culture, one religion, and one way of thinking under their rule: Islam. Ironically, this is the central fact these liberals do not want to see.

On 26 July, the northern French town of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray witnessed a horrific Islamist attack: Two Islamic State (ISIS) terrorists killed an 85-year-old priest, Jacques Hamel, in his church during Mass. Two nuns and two churchgoers were taken hostage.

The terrorists, who had pledged allegiance to ISIS and, shouting “Allahu Akbar”, slit the throat of the priest and captured the bloody episode on video, according to a nun who escaped the assault.

Such Islamist attacks might be new to EU member countries but not to Turkey. For decades, so many innocent, defenseless Christians in Turkey have been slaughtered by Muslim assailants.

Christians in Turkey are still attacked, murdered or threatened daily; the assailants usually get away with their crimes.

In Malatya, in 2007, during the Zirve Bible Publishing House massacre, three Christian employees were attacked, severely tortured, then had their hands and feet tied and their throats cut by five Muslims on April 18, 2007.

‘My Lords, I wish to use the short time available to argue for a better understanding of Israel. This task is urgent because we see now a disturbing resurgence of anti-Zionism that is bordering on the antisemitic, particularly, I regret to say, in sections of the left in British politics.

Israel is not of course above criticism. It is right that where necessary we should be critical of Israeli policy, conduct and behaviour.

But too often this legitimate criticism of specific actions taken by Israel obscures the reality of Israel. When this reality is not heard, it creates a space for those with uglier motivations to build support for grotesque analogies between Israel and apartheid South Africa or even Nazi Germany.

I fear that on the left today what is in jeopardy is support not just for the conduct of Israel but for the concept of Israel. We see senior figures praising as friends those who are committed to the violent destruction of the Jewish homeland.

Indeed, we now have the perverse situation where people who consider themselves to be progressive oppose Israel in the belief that they are standing up for liberal values and human rights, but in doing so side with totalitarian Islamist regimes that abuse human rights and prohibit basic liberties.

I believe that it is the duty of progressives to stop the slide from opposition to specific policies of Israel towards opposition to the very existence of Israel. I want us to make the progressive case for a country where women have the right to vote, dress as they wish and say what they wish in a region where, too often, they are segregated and subjugated; for a country that is committed to the free practice of religion for all in a region where religious minorities are frequently suppressed and persecuted; for a country where gay people are not discriminated against, tortured, detained or executed, as they are almost everywhere else in the region; and for a country with a free press, freedom of expression, an independent judiciary and strong trade unions, all lacking in almost all neighbouring countries.

There is nothing progressive about siding with those who oppose the very values that we as a society strive to represent, and there is nothing progressive about seeking to extinguish a beacon of democracy, modernity and pluralism in the Middle East.’