RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.newcriterion.com/issues/2019/1/now-we-do

Ernesto Araújo is the Foreign Minister of Brazil.

“I am very worried; he talked too much about God.” So said a prominent Brazilian political commentator on TV after hearing President Jair Bolsonaro’s victory speech on the night of October 28, 2018, when the polls showed his victory by a 55–45 margin over the Marxist candidate, Fernando Haddad.

So now talk of God is supposed to worry people. This is sad. But the people of Brazil don’t care. Bolsonaro’s government, in which I serve as foreign minister, doesn’t care what pundits say or what they worry about: they don’t have a clue about who God is or who the Brazilian people are and want to be. Their worry is that of an elite about to be dispossessed. They are afraid because they can no longer control public discourse. They can no longer dictate the limits of the president’s or anyone else’s speech. The last barrier has been broken: we can now talk about God in public. Who could imagine?

Over the years, Brazil had become a cesspool of corruption and despair. The fact that people didn’t talk about God and didn’t bring their faith to the public square was certainly part of the problem. Now that a president talks about God and expresses his faith in a deep, heartfelt way, that is supposed to be the problem? To the contrary. I am convinced that President Bolsonaro’s faith is instrumental, not accidental, to his electoral victory and to the wave of change that is washing over Brazil.

Brazil is experiencing a political and spiritual rebirth, and the spiritual aspect of this phenomenon is the determinant one. The political aspect is only a consequence.

For a third of a century, Brazil was subject to a political system composed of three parties acting increasingly in concert. Only now are we realizing the shape and full extent of that domination. First we had the of Brazilian Democratic Movement (pmdb), which took over after the regime established in 1964 (misleadingly called the military regime) gave away power peacefully in 1985. Originally a moderate left-wing opposition to the regime (although with some far-left infiltration), pmdb took the reins of government, wrote a new constitution, and became a broad front for the old oligarchy under a more modern, urban, social-oriented guise. That group mastered the art of political favors and bureaucracy, establishing itself as the foundation of the system. The extent to which the bureaucracy is able to allocate resources in the Brazilian economy—choosing winners and losers—has always been astounding, and during this period it became a full-fledged system of governance that completely stifled the economy.

The 1990s saw the ascendance of the Social-Democratic Party (psdb), an offshoot of pmdb with roots on the left but better groomed, which started to cater to voters eager for economic stability after a decade and a half of mismanagement and hyperinflation. psdb refashioned itself as the free market party, more or less hiding its true colors and its cultural-liberal agenda, and surfed on sound macroeconomic policies to become the dominant force from 1994 to 2002, always retaining its links to the traditional political-bureaucratic cabals represented by pmdb.

The third branch of the system emerged in the early 2000s, in the shape of the Workers’ Party (PT),an Orwellian name, by the way, since real workers are rarely spotted in this party ruled by Marxist intellectuals, former left-wing guerrillas, and members of the trade-union bureaucracy. After the election of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (known universally as Lula) in 2002, PT—which had been preparing for this for years—quickly captured and co-opted the pmdb–psdb power scheme, retaining the old tit-for-tat machinery run by pmdb and the stability policies represented by psdb and establishing a much firmer grip on power than its predecessors. pmdb became the junior party in PT’s coalition, while psdb took the role of tamed opposition, participating in presidential elections every four years in which its role was to lose nobly to PT.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13494/britain-multiculturalism-transformation

“We demand the legal right to Free Speech, in an Act which will bring an end to the ludicrous notion that ‘hate speech’ and ‘offensive speech’ deserves people be imprisoned or charged. In short, an Act to codify the citizens’ right to freedom of speech without government intervention.” — Petition (ultimately rejected) to the British government calling for codifying free speech.

“A hate crime is any criminal offense, for example assault or malicious communications, which is perceived [emphasis added] to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s actual or perceived race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity.” — From the British government’s response to the petition.

A Home Office review proposed legislative changes that would require Muslim couples to undergo a civil marriage before or at the same time as their Islamic ceremony. Such a requirement would provide women with legal protection under British law. The review said that nearly all those using Sharia councils were females seeking an Islamic divorce. As a “significant number” of Muslim couples do not register their marriages under civil law, “some Muslim women have no option of obtaining a civil divorce.”

The Muslim population of Britain surpassed 4.2 million in 2018 to become around 6.3% of the overall population of 64 million, according to data extrapolated from a recent study on the growth of the Muslim population in Europe. In real terms, Britain has the third-largest Muslim population in the European Union, after France, then Germany.

The rapid growth of Britain’s Muslim population can be attributed to immigration, high birth rates and conversions to Islam.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13476/european-union-authoritarian

What the Lisbon Treaty actually created was an authoritarian political system that infringes on human and political rights.

Article 4 states in part: “…The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives.” In other words, the interests of the Union are above the interests of individual states and citizens.

In a democratic system with a healthy balance of power, a ruling coalition can be challenged or replaced by the opposition. This is precisely what is lacking in the EU, as the Treaty of Lisbon requires that European Commission members be selected on the basis of their “European commitment.” This means, in effect, that anyone with a dissenting view may never become a member of the Commission. As history repeatedly demonstrates, where there is no opposition, freedom is lost.

The Treaty of Lisbon — drafted as a replacement to the 2005 Constitutional Treaty and signed in 2007 by the leaders of the 27 European Union member states — describes itself as an agreement to “reform the functioning of the European Union… [it] sets out humanitarian assistance as a specific Commission competence.”

What the Lisbon Treaty actually created, however, was an authoritarian political system that infringes on human and political rights.

Take the mandate of the European Commission (EC), for instance. According to Article 17 of the Treaty:

“The Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union… In carrying out its responsibilities, the Commission shall be completely independent… the members of the Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government or other institution, body, office or entity.”