RUTHFULLY YOURS

Nationalism belongs to the times when humans lived in an associative way and in a familiar and cherished environment, and it has brought mankind to where we are today, good and bad. The future our descendants will have to live in -or survive in- will demand much more from us … and from them.

Patriotism is a love of everything to do with our native land: its history, its traditions, its language, its natural features. It is a love which extends also to the works of our compatriots and the fruits of their genius.
—Pope John Paul II, Memory and Identity (2005)

These are unusual sentiments for a public figure to express in much of the West today. Perhaps only a Polish patriot, and one who was born just two years after the re-emergence of the Polish nation in 1918 from the long unwelcome grip of its near neighbours, could understand why nationhood still matters. The terrors and brutality twentieth-century Europe unleashed upon itself—and unavoidably upon others—have, as a direct result, given rise to a European psychosis, particularly evidenced in the European Union where the “death of nationalism” has become bound into its liturgy. A fear of war has contaminated the European view of itself, its place in a new world order and what it must seek to become. Though seeming to cling to its often difficult history, it is reconstructing itself, though, in the words of Melanie Phillips, “the EU is [an] artificial construct, the imagined community that falsely claims for itself the … appurtenances of a nation … which concentrates power in Brussels while reducing nations to the status of provinces”. It has distanced itself from the values which identify a politically active, democratic, liberal, corruption-free and secular polity. The EU leadership has other imperatives.

Seeking scapegoats for Europe’s war-ravaged past, the EU has seized upon nationalism. Such a view is entirely at odds with those modern states which still find strength and energy in the values of nationhood; the USA, Japan and India for example. Nationalism and militarism have sometimes been chained together, though it can quickly be seen that nationalism can operate well without being a vessel for militarism, just as militarism can work without the full benefits of nationalism; but that with an uncertain stability.

The purging of the nationalist spirit is an EU work-in-progress and is shown by an intentional demeaning of the idea of nationhood. The EU’s policy of the free movement of EU citizens has the effect of removing from the individual all national sentiment. Internationalism, the EU has determined, will replace any other political formation and the ubiquitous notion of “community” will replace the long-used but nearly forgotten descriptor “the people”. This, of course, is merely the beginning of the politically correct program steering the sanitisation of words and meaning to better identify what is acceptable and unacceptable thought and, therefore, action. This is a corruption hastening an end to a non-ideological language, or its re-incarnation as a twisted liturgy.

One more point in this preamble: the immigration of people from countries outside the EU is poorly controlled by the EU. Immigration offsets future labour shortage estimates and thus helps to meet, via the taxation system, part of the funds required to meet rising welfare costs—a welfare program necessarily providing for the arrival and settlement costs of the increasing number of refugees and immigrants who, as an aside, are more likely to cast their votes in favour of the parties most sympathetic to their needs. Accordingly, since all governments have, as their most fundamental political obligation, to ensure the security and safety of their citizens, allowing mass immigration without serious regulation or control, abuses that obligation.

A history

A country that does not understand its own history is unlikely to respect that of others.
—Antony Beevor, military historian

What is meant by “patriot”? The Oxford English Reference Dictionary says that it derives from the Latin patrios (of one’s father) and patris (fatherland). Patriotism, therefore, is of one’s blood heritage, of one’s land. Military heroes are treated, and rewarded, as patriots.

Nationalism has its roots in the Latin word nation from which the concepts of native, tribe, birth, race and a confederation of like people emerge. The English word innate shares the same beginnings. Nationalism, therefore, salutes the association of those of like being and, in a more modern sense, the political struggle of associated people for national independence.

George Orwell wrote that “nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism”. For Orwell “patriotism is, of its nature, defensive, both military and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire [for] power”. These sentiments were uttered immediately after the Second World War and reflected the distress of those times. Whether one can become “confused” between these two distinctions is open for discussion but to treat “patriotism” as attaching to personal valour, and “nationalism” or “nationhood” as referring to the unity of a people with a common language, shared ceremonies, history and landscape, is the chosen distinction for this essay.

Though nationalism is frequently seen as a modern phenomenon—the French Revolution is commonly considered its beginnings—the roots of nationhood are ancient. The course of the life of Homo sapiens perhaps began some 80,000 to 120,000 years ago with migrations from the north-west of Africa into Asia and Europe. Over time Homo sapiens established its colonies in all regions of the world as a hunter-gatherer, and survived as the dominant hominid species; no matter the dangers, the uncertainties, the vast, empty landscapes and the violent clashes with others of their kind.

The court heard how Amer K. stabbed the mother of his three children in the chest and neck more than twenty times with a large kitchen knife, because he thought she wanted to divorce him.

“Then he takes the knife and plunges it into her chest, [penetrating] the pericardium and heart muscle. A second stab opens the left abdominal cavity. Nurettin B. then pulls out the ax. With the blunt side he hits her head, cracking her skull. Then he grabs the rope. On one end he ties a gibbet knot around her neck, then he ties the other end to the trailer hitch on [his car]… He races through the streets at 80 km/h [until] the rope breaks.” — State Prosecutor Ann-Kristin Fröhlich, reconstructing the husband’s actions.

In Ahaus, a 27-year-old Nigerian asylum seeker stabbed to death a 22-year-old woman after she seemingly offended his honor by rejecting his romantic advances.

The trial of a Kurdish man who tied one of his three wives to the back of a car and dragged her through the streets of a town in Lower Saxony has drawn attention to an outbreak of Muslim honor violence in Germany.

Honor violence — ranging from emotional abuse to physical and sexual violence to murder — is usually carried out by male family members against female family members who are perceived to have brought shame upon a family or clan.

Offenses include refusing to agree to an arranged marriage, entering into a relationship with a non-Muslim or someone not approved by the family, refusing to stay in an abusive marriage or living an excessively Western lifestyle. In practice, however, the lines between crimes of honor and crimes of passion are often blurred and any challenge to male authority can elicit retribution, which is sometimes staggeringly brutal.

On May 22, a court in Hanover heard how a 39-year-old Turkish-born Kurd named Nurettin B. attempted to murder his second wife, Kader K., 28, after she asked him to provide financial support for their two-year-old son. State Prosecutor Ann-Kristin Fröhlich reconstructed Nurettin B.’s actions:

“At around 6PM on November 20, 2016, Nurettin B. got into his car in Hamelin to meet Kader K. The trunk contained a knife, an ax and a rope. Sitting on the back seat of the car was their two-year-old son, who had spent the weekend with him. On the street, the former couple got into an argument and he begins hitting her. Then he takes the knife and plunges it into her chest. The 12.4 centimeter long blade penetrates the pericardium and heart muscle. A second stab opens the left abdominal cavity. Nurettin B. then pulls out the ax. With the blunt side he hits her head and upper body, cracking her skull.

“Then he grabs the rope. On one end he ties a gibbet knot around her neck, then he ties the other end to the trailer hitch on the back of his black VW Passat. Nurettin B. steps on the gas. He races through the streets at 80 km/h (50 mph). After 208 meters (680 feet) the rope breaks. Kader K. is hurled against the curb. Nurettin B. drives to the police station to turn himself in. The child is still sitting in the back seat.”

Presiding Judge Wolfgang Rosenbusch asked Kader K., who was comatose for weeks, to tell her side of the story. She said “the horror” began immediately after their Islamic sharia wedding (the marriage is not valid according to German law) in March 2013, when Nurettin B. prohibited her from having any contact with friends and family. She was allowed to leave the house only for grocery shopping and medical visits. She was not allowed to have a mobile phone. Rosenbusch asked: “Does he have a problem with women?” Kader K. replied: “He believes women are slaves; they must keep silent.”

Nurettin B. has confessed to the crime but insists it was not premeditated. He has been charged with attempted murder and faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.

“Ramadan has been not only a month of worship and of growing close to Allah the Almighty, but also a month of action and jihad aimed at spreading this great religion… throughout [Muslim] history, Ramadan has been a month of great conquests….”. — ‘Ali Gum’a, then Grand mufti of Egypt, Al-Ahram in July 2012.

“According to Islamic practice, sacrifice during Ramadan can be considered more valuable than that made at other times, so a call to martyrdom during the month may hold a special allure to some.” — Report by the U.S. State Department-led Overseas Security Advisory Council, The Independent, June 9, 2016.

“Jihad in the Arabic language… means: …striving… where the cause/objective is goodness & justice…Holy war [is] not an expression in the Qur’an: War is NEVER holy.” — Anna Cole, ‘inclusion specialist’ for the UK Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), which represents more than 18,000 head teachers and college leaders.

“Our fight is Jihad and an obligatory worship. And every obligatory act of worship has 70 times more reward in Ramadan,” said Zabihullah Mujahid, spokesman for the Taliban, rejecting U.N.-led calls for halting hostilities during Ramadan.

ISIS also just released a YouTube message — quoting the Quran — urging its supporters to attack the “infidels… in their homes, their markets, their roads and their forums…”

“double your efforts and intensify your operations… Do not despise the work. Your targeting of the so-called innocents and civilians is beloved by us and the most effective, so go forth and may you get a great reward or martyrdom in Ramadan”.

An article in the Ramadan issue of ISIS’ Rumiyah magazine told readers to use the month of Ramadan to “maximise the benefit you receive on the day of judgement”.

ISIS’s call for increased jihad during the month of Ramadan is now a yearly occurrence. Last year, after an audio message by the ISIS spokesman at the time, Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, calling on jihadists to “get prepared, be ready … to make it a month of calamity everywhere for nonbelievers…especially for the fighters and supporters of the caliphate in Europe and America”, the U.S. government warned citizens at home and abroad of an increased terrorist risk:

“According to Islamic practice, sacrifice during Ramadan can be considered more valuable than that made at other times, so a call to martyrdom during the month may hold a special allure to some.”

This year, the day the Ramadan began, Friday, May 26, 2017, jihadists attacked a bus filled with Coptic Christians travelling to a monastery in Egypt, and murdered 29 of them. Ten of the victims were children; one, only two years old. A few days earlier, jihadists in the Philippines warmed up for Ramadan by murdering 14 Christians and wounding more than 50. The Muslim Abu Sayyaf group, linked to Al Qaeda, claimed responsibility. The day after the beginning of Ramadan, May 27, a Taliban suicide bomber murdered 18 people in Afghanistan, two of them children.

Frau Merkel was much more gemutlich to Obama who just happened to be in Deutschland while our president was in the Middle East….She just air-brushed the fact that the Obama administration wire-tapped and spied on German government and media…..rsk
Angela Merkel’s declaration on the weekend that Germany and continental Europe will have to depend more on themselves is being portrayed as the Donald Trump -inspired end of American leadership in Europe. But if that’s true, and we have heard this dirge before, the erosion of U.S. leadership hardly began with Mr. Trump. It started under Barack Obama, whose failure to lead was too often reinforced by his main partner in Europe, Mrs. Merkel.

“All I can say is that we Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands,” the German leader told a crowd during a re-election campaign event at a beer tent in Bavaria. “The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days.”

That was widely perceived as the German Chancellor’s reaction to last week’s NATO and G-7 summits, when the new U.S. President challenged NATO members to spend more on defense and refused to sign on to the climate-change policies of the other six leaders.

Mrs. Merkel seemed especially miffed about Mr. Trump’s decision not to embrace the Paris climate accord that Mr. Obama signed in his final year as President. “The whole discussion about climate has been difficult, or rather very unsatisfactory,” Mrs. Merkel told reporters. “Here we have the situation that six members, or even seven if you want to add the [European Union], stand against one.’

But wait. Since when is a difference of opinion on climate policy a signal of U.S. retreat from Europe? And why is Mr. Trump’s reluctance to sign on to Paris—he says he’ll decide whether to leave the accord this week—a failure of leadership? Mrs. Merkel’s comments suggest that she is most upset because Mr. Trump declined to follow her lead on climate.

Mr. Trump should decline if he wants to fulfill his campaign promises to lift the U.S. economy. Mrs. Merkel’s embrace of green-energy dogmas has done enormous harm to the German economy. She reacted to the Fukushima meltdown by phasing out nuclear power, and her government has force-fed hundreds of billions of dollars into solar and wind power that have raised energy costs. As Der Spiegel once put it, electricity is now a “luxury good” in Germany.

It’s not surprising that Mrs. Merkel and the Europeans should want to shackle the U.S. with similarly high energy costs, and Mr. Obama was happy to oblige. But Mr. Trump was elected on a promise to raise middle-class incomes, and domestic energy production is essential to that effort. Mrs. Merkel doesn’t care if Mr. Obama committed the U.S. to Paris without any Congressional approval, but Mr. Trump has to take that into account.

MANCHESTER, England—Britain’s MI5 security service has launched an internal investigation into how it handled intelligence about Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi, who killed 22 people in an attack outside a pop concert last week, a U.K. security official said Monday.

Abedi, a 22-year-old British-born son of Libyan immigrants, had been reported to the authorities for espousing extremist sentiments, saw combat as a teenager in Libya’s civil war and lived in a neighborhood that has produced recruiters and fighters for Islamic State.

Last week, Abedi, dressed in a puffy Hollister winter jacket, bluejeans and a gray baseball cap, walked into a crowd of concertgoers streaming out of a performance by American pop star Ariana Grande and detonated a shrapnel-filled explosive device in the deadliest terror attack in Britain since 2005.

British officials have said Abedi was “known” to security services. He was one of 20,000 suspected extremists MI5 has tracked in the past, but wasn’t among 3,000 under active investigation by the agency at the time of the bombing, the official said.

“He was part of an investigation that was closed, when it was decided it was not necessary or proportionate to continue it,” the official said. “We’re reviewing things in the sense that we’re looking back and want to learn lessons.”

Police on Monday were holding 14 people—including Abedi’s older brother and two cousins—as they tried to piece together what authorities have described as a possible “network” of accomplices that helped him prepare for and carry out the attack.

Abedi’s father and younger brother, Hashem, were in the custody of a Libyan militia in Tripoli.

Authorities worried Abedi had manufactured bomb materials that weren’t used in last week’s attack. But after days of searches and arrests around Manchester, the security services believed they had tracked down all of the hydrogen-peroxide-based explosives linked to Abedi, the official said.

Manchester police on Monday published a photograph of Abedi carrying a blue suitcase and appealed to members of the public for any information about the bag. The police said there was no reason to believe the suitcase or its contents were dangerous, but advised caution.

Friends and acquaintances of Abedi say he had become increasingly religious and expressed interest in extremist groups in recent years.

In 2011, Abedi fought alongside his father as Libyan rebels sought to oust dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Many from Manchester’s Libyan community did the same. Abedi and other teenagers returned from the battlefield hardened, friends and community leaders said.

In the years that followed a number of young people from south Manchester left to fight with Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. CONTINUE AT SITE