RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17468/germany-failed-hezbollah-ban

In retrospect, Germany’s much-vaunted Hezbollah ban appears to have been little more than a publicity stunt aimed at silencing critics of the German government’s pro-Iran foreign policy.

Hezbollah has effectively evaded the ban by transferring many of its activities to charities and cultural centers controlled by Iran.

Iran’s main base of operation in Germany is the Hamburg-based Shiite Imam Ali Mosque and the associated Islamic Centre of Hamburg (Islamisches Zentrum Hamburg, IZH).

“Like all pro-Iranian institutions, IZH is based on the model of the Islamic state of Allah and the ideas of the 1979 revolution with the aim of expanding and Islamizing the entire world. Western values, liberal ideas or the free democratic basic order are in contradiction to this. Due to the history and the animosity between Iran and Israel, the teachings of IZH have a strong anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli attitude.” — Annual Report for 2020, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, Hamburg branch.

“Although it contains ‘democratic’ elements, this doctrine does not serve to establish the rule of the people, i.e., democracy, but rather to establish the rule of Allah, whose ‘guardians’ are Shiite Islamic scholars. Therefore, Hezbollah spreads an extremist Islamist ideology and represents a threat to the constitutional order.” — Annual Report for 2020, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, North Rhine-Westphalia branch.

“For Hezbollah, Germany represents a space for logistical and financial support services. Although its supporters in Germany are well networked internally, they are not very visible to the outside world because they are careful not to be openly connected with Hezbollah.” — Annual Report for 2020, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, Rhineland Palatinate branch.

“One gets the impression that no one has really tried to completely shed light on and smash the structures of Hezbollah in Germany.” — German MP Benjamin Strasser.

The Hezbollah ban was in fact a compromise measure between German lawmakers who wanted to take a harder line against Iran and those who did not. As a result, the ban fell far short of a complete prohibition on Hezbollah and was apparently aimed at providing the German government with political cover that allowed Germany to claim that it had banned the group even if it had not.

One year after Germany banned Hezbollah from operating on its soil, the Iran-backed, Lebanon-based Shiite terrorist group’s presence in Germany is stronger than ever.

In the twelve months since the ban entered into effect, Hezbollah’s propaganda and fundraising activities in Germany have continued apace; the number of its followers in the country has increased; and the Hamburg mosque which serves as Iran’s main base of operations in Germany has gained in influence.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/15/no-leaders-attended-the-g7-summit/

When I was a child, I made the mistake, as many children do, of thinking that the actors I saw in movies were in some way responsible for their lines. As the playwright Moss Hart heard from a lady sitting behind him: “Actors say the cleverest things!”

But it didn’t take me long to notice that while an actor can make good material great, he cannot make bad material good. If you give him stupid and implausible things to say, he will look stupid and implausible. He may or may not be aware of how he looks; that’s not his job: His job is to act the way someone tells him to act, and to say what someone tells him to say.

And that brings us to the picture of the G7 leaders on the beach in Cornwall. Nobody who watches the film of these people arriving, coming down the boardwalk carefully spaced, hygienically elbow-bumping in lieu of shaking hands, and finally taking up positions for their photo op—nobody would believe these people are world leaders. Because they aren’t. They aren’t running the western world. They are run by the people who really are running the western world—people whose names we don’t know. The people on the beach in Cornwall are there simply in recognition of the working man’s need to see an elected head of state. They are actors.

A Rasmussen poll in March found that just 47 percent of Americans believe Biden is actually doing the job of president. At least as many people believe the job is being done by some other person or persons behind the scenes. And that 47 percent who believe Biden is doing the job must think it’s an awfully easy one, since you don’t have to remember where you are or with whom you are speaking. Even as an actor, Biden’s powers are failing.

It is hardly more plausible that Boris Johnson, a man who looks and talks like a buttered scone, is actually determining policy in Britain. Remember his great pandemic speech: “I must give the British people a very simple instruction: You must stay at home. . . . If you don’t follow the rules, the police will have the power to enforce them . . .” That would have stuck in the throat of any real leader of any real democracy. Churchill would be vomiting in his grave. But Boris Johnson’s eyes were burning with earnestness as he relayed the instructions given to him by the civil service bureaucracy and whatever other hidden powers are running his mouth.

Justin Trudeau meanwhile seemed genuinely hurt when nobody liked his little Bhangra dance routine back in Delhi in 2018. It’s not entirely his fault: He was in Indian costume, and he slipped into the role. He forgot for a moment that his full time job was pretending to be a prime minister.

You could replace Biden with any Hollywood actor—George Clooney, Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Meryl Streep—and it wouldn’t make the slightest difference in how the country is being run or what policies are pursued. You could replace Biden with a paper cup. That might destroy the illusion (though not by much). Biden is a figurehead, rather more embarrassing than the Queen of England, and rather less powerful.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/06/anatomy-lynching-lloyd-billingsley/

“Their lives were taken in a brutal, cowardly, and brazen act of violence. This killing was no accident. This was a terrorist attack motivated by hatred in the heart of one of our communities.” 

That was Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, speaking to reporters last Tuesday. Over in Pakistan, Prime Minister Imran Khan blamed the attack on “growing Islamophobia” in Western countries that “needs to be countered holistically by the international community.”

Ontario premier Doug Ford proclaimed that “justice must be served for the horrific act of hatred that took place.” London, Ontario, mayor Ed Holder told reporters, “this was an act of mass murder, perpetrated against Muslims, against Londoners, and rooted in unspeakable hatred.” London detective superintendent Paul Waight said, “there is evidence that this was a planned, premeditated act, motivated by hate. We believe the victims were targeted because of their Islamic faith.” 

Mustafa Farooq of the National Council of Canadian Muslims said “this is a terrorist attack on Canadian soil, and should be treated as such.” What, exactly, was this carefully planned terrorist attack that had drawn such international wrath?

On June 6, Salman Afzaal, 46, his wife Madiha, 44, their daughter Yumna, 15, Fayez, nine, and Salman’s mother, Talat, 74, immigrants to Canada in 2007, were waiting an at intersection when they were struck by a truck driven by 20-year-old Nathaniel Veltman. The crash killed all but Fayez, who remains in hospital. 

Police arrested Veltman, reportedly wearing body armor, a military-style helmet, and a Nazi T-shirt. He allegedly laughed about the crash, indulged in strange chanting, and requested that a movie made of him. As one headline put it “Christian terroristwho mowed down Muslim family ‘was laughing’ as he got out of blood covered truck.” 

The sole source for these details was a “veteran cabbie,” now allegedly too traumatized to speak, so the spokesman was Iranian immigrant Hasan Savehilaghi, who operates the cab company. Since Savehilaghi had not been a witness on the scene, the account was entirely hearsay. Savehilaghi did not explain how Veltman had planned to be driving near the intersection precisely when the Afzaal family was waiting to cross the street. 

Nathaniel Veltman, it turns out, is one of six children, including a twin sister, and grew up in a Christian family in Strathroy, Ontario. Veltman attended Fanshawe College in London and works at a local egg packing company. 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/06/g7-and-globalist-diplomacy-fetish-bruce-thornton/

The most recent G7 summit has come and gone, accomplishing little except to remind us how useless and dangerous has been our long fetish for diplomacy. These meetings and other multinational confabs are merely part of the New World Order’s marketing campaign to convince the free West that multinational technocratic elites are better at advancing national interests than are the sovereign peoples to whom government office-holders are accountable.

Here in the U.S., such advertising campaigns also provide progressives with a permanent partisan club for beating conservatives and foreign policy realists who want to put America’s national interests and security ahead of those of some mythic “global community,” a euphemism for nations who talk globally but act locally.

American Democrat and Republican globalists have for decades smeared nationalism and promoted instead greater integration into the “rules-based international order.” Conservative presidents who resisted were pilloried as unsophisticated jingoists and trigger-happy militarists clinging to worn-out ideas from a more savage time. Ronald Reagan, with his allegedly crude, unnuanced “we win, they lose” and “evil empire” rhetoric was mocked as a dangerously naïve warmonger, with his arms build-up and “Star Wars” fantasies about anti-missile defense systems. But Reagan’s success showed that for diplomatic “covenants” to be effective, there had to be a credible “sword” backing the agreement.

This caricature of Republican presidents ran wild during the George W. Bush years. The second war against Saddam Hussein was attacked as a “failure of diplomacy” despite the serial diplomatic failures of Hussein’s violating more than a dozen UN Security Council resolutions as well as the terms of the Gulf War armistice. Typical was the statement of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who said he was “saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to war.” Of course, the New York Times also peddled this DNC talking point, writing of Bush’s “failure to enlist the help of the United Nations in conducting the war,” despite Bush’s spending several  months trying to get the UN Security Council to “help.”