RUTHFULLY YOURS

Quebec, like the entire West, is facing an existential demographic and religious crisis.

Quebec’s death spiral is explicitly linked with the calls for increased immigration. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who put an end to the military campaign against the Islamic State, just called on Muslim migrants to come to his country.

Resistance to Quebec’s dramatic collapse of Christianity does not necessarily require a new embrace of an old Catholicism, but it certainly does need a sane rediscovery of what a Western democracy should be. That includes an appreciation of Western identity and Judeo-Christian values — everything Trudeau’s government and much of Europe apparently refuse to accept.

Welcome to Quebec, with its flavor of an old French province, with its beautiful landscapes, where streets are named after Catholic saints, and where a gunman just murdered six people in a local mosque.

Violence can be the consequence of societal convulsions, as in the 2011 massacre on Norway’s island of Utoya, in a country that prided itself of being ultra-secularized, and part of the global “good society”. Quebec, also, like the entire West, is facing an existential demographic and religious crisis.

George Weigel, writing in the American publication, First Things recently called Quebec “Catholicism’s Empty Quarter”. “There is no more religiously arid place,” he wrote, “between the North Pole and Tierra del Fuego; there may be no more religiously arid place on the planet”.

Sandro Magister, one of Italy’s most prominent journalists on Catholic affairs, wrote, “while Rome talks, Quebec has already been lost”.

Quebec’s Catholic buildings are empty; the clergy is aging. Today, inside the Church of Saint-Jude in Montreal, personal fitness trainers take the place of Catholic priests. The Théatre Paradoxe in Montreal now sits where the church of Notre-Dame-du-Perpétuel-Secours was before it shut. The former Christian nave is now used for concerts and conferences, while Christian hymns on Sundays are replaced by disco shows.

“The question is simple and cruel: will our children live in a free, independent, democratic country?” — Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s National Front party.

“Economic globalization, which rejects any limits, has weakened the immune system of the nation by dispossessing it of its constituent elements: borders, national currency, the authority of its laws in conducting economic affairs, and thus allowing another world to be born and grow: Islamic fundamentalism.” — Marine Le Pen.

“Islamic fundamentalism instrumentalizes the principle of religious freedom in an attempt to impose patterns of thought that are clearly the opposite of ours. We do not want to live under the yoke or threat of Islamic fundamentalism.” — Marine Le Pen.

“Globalism is based, as we see, on the negation of the values ​​on which France was built and on the principles in which the immense majority of French people still recognize themselves: the pre-eminence of the person and therefore its sacred character, individual freedom and therefore individual consent, national feeling and therefore national solidarity, equality of persons and therefore the refusal of situations of submission.” — Marine Le Pen.

“Those who come to France are to accept France, not to transform it to the image of their country of origin. If they want to live at home, they should have stayed at home.” — Marine Le Pen.

“In terms of terrorism, we do not intend to ask the French to get used to living with this horror. We will eradicate it here and abroad.” — Marine Le Pen.

“Everyone agrees that the European Union is a failure. It did not deliver on any of its promises, particularly on prosperity and security…. That is why, if elected, I will announce a referendum within six months on remaining or exiting the European Union…” — Marine Le Pen.

“The old left-right debates have outlived their usefulness…. This divide is no longer between the left and the right, but between patriots and globalists.” — Marine Le Pen.

Marine Le Pen, the leader of the anti-establishment National Front party, has officially launched her campaign to become the next president of France.

Speaking at a rally attended by thousands of her supporters in Lyon on February 5, Le Pen launched a two-pronged attack on globalization and radical Islam. She promised French voters a referendum on remaining in the European Union, and also to deport Muslims who are deemed a security risk to France.

The agreement to offload uninvited arrivals warehoused in Nauru and Manus was struck five days after the election by a lame duck president intent on saddling his successor with an intolerable obligation. Is it any wonder Trump reacted the way he did?
Perhaps there have been others but to my knowledge only Andrew Bolt nailed it. The dust-up is Malcolm Turnbull’s fault. Though, mind you, slippery Julie Bishop shouldn’t be let off the hook. This is a dumb deal, as President Trump so pithily put it.

Now let’s see. The United States agrees to admit 1250 so-called refugees stuck in Australia’s offshore detention centres in Nauru and Manus Island. We knew this was even more bizarre that Julia Gillard’s Malaysian deal when we first heard of it. It never passed the sniff test. Why in the world would the US ever agree to it? Ah! The US body politic did not agree to it. Barack Hussein Obama and his left-wing henchmen did. There’s the rub that Mr Turnbull should have appreciated from the very start.

Does anyone think that Hillary Clinton would have agreed to such a dumb deal if she’d been elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012. Of course she wouldn’t. If elected in 2016, she would not have undone it or railed against it, but that is not the same thing.

This is hard for nearly all commentators. Put yourself in Trump’s position. He was elected on November 8 in large part because he promised to crackdown on illegal immigration and take resolute action to prevent Islamic terrorists from entering the US. While in the making for some time, the dumb deal was not finally concluded and signed off until November 13. Five days passed during which Mal and Julie should have thought about it. Signing that dumb deal was tantamount to spitting in the eye of Trump. The honourable and diplomatically proper procedure for Turnbull to have adopted would have been to sign the deal subject to its ratification by the President-elect when he took office.

Turnbull knew that he would be pilloried politically if the deal fell through. He knew his political capital was rock bottom. He calculated that it was better to embarrass the new president than it was to suffer more domestic political odium. He was too clever by half, but seems to have got away with it. Why? Because Trump is a political pariah who can do no right.

Perception is reality. And all of the MSM reportage and commentary that I have come across in Australia and in the US has the little guy being bullied by the big guy. Trump is the villain; as he was absolutely bound to be. Republican Senator McCain apologised to the Australian ambassador for Trump’s behaviour. What a lark, Turnbull must be thinking.

This is a verbatim taste of the Australian press’s Trump-berating emphasis: petulant Trump, tweeting like a juvenile, badgering and bragging, appearing to be unhinged, treating Australia like dirt, stamping his feet and screaming, completely clueless, a narcissistic buffoon. The last ad hominem attack came courtesy of a dug-up quote from the diplomatic ex-diplomat Kim Beazley.

Not being privy to this particular telephone conversation nor to any of the others between world leaders since the telephone was invented in 1876, I don’t know how far out of diplomatic bounds this one was. No Trump fan, Greg Sheridan seemed to take a grounded view. “Too much is being made of Trump’s leaked testy language [it was] the end of a long day and he was tired and terse.” That kind of balanced comment is going to get Sheridan drummed out of the press collective. He should have at least once included the descriptor buffoon.

Never mind the substance, what about the style? This pretty well sums up the MSM’s reaction to everything Trump does. It is plainly pathetic and common-sense people — those Deplorables — can see through it. In this case, Turnbull pulled a shifty on Trump. Trump knew it. Imagine how galling it must have been for him to be reminded by Turnbull that they were both businessmen and a deal is a deal. I am surprised that Trump didn’t use a string of expletives. President Nixon undoubtedly would have, and there would have gone his reputation down the toilet.

Let’s go back to why this deal was ever contemplated by President Obama. Who first suggested it? I just cannot believe it came from the Australian end, as desperate as the government is to empty detention centres. I mean, surely, this would not have entered Turnbull’s or Bishop’s wildest imaginings. It must have come out of Obama’s henchmen. Maybe I am paranoid but if these refugees had been Hindus, Buddhists, Jews or Seventh Day Adventists would this deal have ever entered Obama’s wildest imaginings? I think not. He just likes Muslim immigrants; their religion and their proclivity for voting left.

“Unfortunately, the West has rejected the idea of solidarity with the Christians of the Middle East, prioritizing diplomacy based on oil interests and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thus, the United States, Britain, and France have largely ignored the persecutions of the Christians of Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, and Sudan, while rushing to save the oil-rich Muslim states of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait…” — Hannibal Travis, Professor of Law, 2006.

Indigenous Christians in Iraq and Syria have not only been exposed to genocide at the hands of the Islamic State and other Islamist groups, but also their applications for immigration to Western countries have been put on the back-burner by, shamefully but not surprisingly, the UN.

When one brings up the issue of Western states taking in Muslim migrants from Syria and Iraq without vetting them for jihadist ties, while leaving behind the Christian and Yazidi victims of jihadists, one is accused of being “bigoted” or “racist”. But the real bigotry is abandoning the persecuted and benign Middle Eastern Christians and Yazidis, the main victims of the ongoing genocides in Syria and Iraq.

The German government is also rejecting applications for asylum of Christian refugees and deporting them unfairly, according to a German pastor.

Nearly a third of the respondents said that most of the discrimination and violence came mostly from refugee camp guards of Muslim descent.

It is high time that not only the U.S. but all other Western governments finally saw that the Christians in the Middle East are them.

Finally, after years of apathy and inaction, Washington is extending a much-needed helping hand to Middle Eastern Christians. U.S. President Donald Trump recently announced that persecuted Christians will be given priority when it comes to applying for refugee status in the United States.

Christians and Yazidis are being exposed to genocide at the hands of ISIS and other Islamist groups, who have engaged in a massive campaign to enslave the remnant non-Muslim minorities and to destroy their cultural heritage.

The scholar Hannibal Travis wrote in 2006:

On the competing strains of populist politics.

The West is abuzz with reports of a populist wave: rolling through Europe, sweeping across the Atlantic, and crashing into Gomorrah-by-the-Potomac. Donald Trump’s election as president of the United States—a watershed event as unthinkable as it was improbable to many across the ideological spectrum of American punditry—followed hard on the British people’s vote to exit the European Union, a cognate popular rejection of bipartisan elite opinion.

In short order, Matteo Renzi was the next shoe to drop. Italy’s now-former prime minister, a young, attractive, politically “progressive” technocrat, darling of the European cognoscenti, had been hailed—it seemed like only yesterday—as Rome’s (or is it Brussels’s?) answer to Barack Obama. He resigned in November, though, after the Italian people resoundingly defeated his proposed constitutional “reform.” The scare-quotes are offered advisedly: Italy having been virtually ungovernable since Garibaldi forced what passes for its unification, Sig. Renzi’s reform was a scheme to end the paralysis by accreting power to himself at the expense of the legislature. Think of it as a gambit to codify U.S. President Barack Obama’s “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone” style of centralized rule.

The victorious Trump had the populist wind at his back. Thus, efforts to caricature the real-estate mogul and reality-television star as a budding Hitler fell flat. Renzi, by contrast, ran into the teeth of that wind. The hyperbole casting him as a would-be Mussolini took its toll.

Renzi’s fall is the continental aftershock of the Brexit earthquake. The “Remain” camp’s failure ushered out David Cameron of the Europhile center-right. He is succeeded by Theresa May, who has promised to carry out the public will despite her (understated) support for “Remain.”

But that’s not all, not by a long shot.

In France, the socialist President François Hollande’s favorability rating is so infinitesimal—well under 10 percent in some polls—that a reelection bid was inconceivable. The two viable candidates to succeed him are both riding the populist wave: the virulently anti-Islamist Marine Le Pen of the Nationalist Front, and the intriguing François Fillon, the former prime minister. As Fred Siegel incisively details in City Journal, Fillon is a social conservative whose economic program is Thatcherite (sacré bleu!) and has its sights trained on Paris’s bloated public sector. One way or another, dramatic change is coming.
Is “populism” the right diagnosis for the upheavals in the West?

While most politicians across Europe – Nigel Farage excepted – responded to Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy with sneers of condescension and greeted his victory with either grudging congratulations or cries of apocalyptic alarm, Geert Wilders was an outspoken Trump cheerleader all along. The day after the American election, the crusading Dutch politician characterized America’s verdict as “a political revolution” and a “stunning and historic achievement” that “sent a powerful message to the world.” He added: “I never doubted Mr. Trump would win. We are witnessing the same uprising on both sides of the Atlantic. The Patriotic Spring is sweeping the Western world.”

Well, let’s hope so. So far the only other evidence of any such Patriotic Spring has been Brexit (and even that’s starting to look shaky, thanks to the court ruling that the British Parliament has to ratify the referendum vote). The next major test of the “Patriotic Spring” will come on March 15, when Wilders’s own Freedom Party (PVV) will compete in the elections for the Tweede Kamer, the more powerful lower house of the Dutch Parliament. Things have changed a lot since the last election, in 2012, when the two big vote-getters were the left-wing Labor Party (PvdA) and the conservative People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). Wilders’s PVV came in far behind, more or less tied with three other parties, each of which took about a dozen seats out of 150, the rest being distributed among five even smaller parties. In the wake of the 2012 election, the VVD and PvdA formed a coalition government, with VVD head Mark Rutte staying on as Prime Minister.

The new government wasn’t in office for long, however, before Wilders’s PVV skyrocketed in the polls, becoming the nation’s largest party. Next thing you knew – surprise! – the demonization of Wilders kicked into high gear. The pretext: in a speech to supporters, he asked if they wanted more or less of the EU, more or less of the Labor Party, and more or fewer Moroccans. Wilders’s suggestion that the Netherlands might not want to take in limitless numbers of Moroccans outraged pretty much the entire Dutch establishment: the political and media elite savaged him; schoolteachers denounced him in classrooms; clergy decried him from pulpits. Wilders responded by pointing out that three in five Dutch-Moroccan men under age 23 had rap sheets and that Moroccans were 22 times more likely than ethnic Dutchmen to commit violent crimes. But it didn’t help. The slime campaign worked. The PVV’s numbers dropped, and it became the nation’s #3 party.

But not for long. The PVV soon rebounded, and since summer before last, it’s been the Netherlands’s top-polling party, leading the VVD by a comfortable margin and leaving the fast-disappearing PvdA entirely in the dust. After living through their country’s distinctively dramatic post-9/11 history – the assassinations of Pim Fortuyn in 2002 and Theo van Gogh in 2004, the Ayaan Hirsi Ali debacle that ended with her emigration to the U.S. in 2006, and the rise (and international vilification) of Wilders – Dutch voters seem finally to be on the verge of making the PVV the largest party in the Tweede Kamer.

Geert Wilders:
President Donald Trump, what a relief! What a relief in comparison with the leftist dictatorship of the fearful cowardly and willfully blind leaders that we have in the rest of Europe and also here in this Chamber. It makes one cry. I tell you, finally America has a President, finally a Western country has a President who not only fulfills his promises, but also states that the security of his own citizens is his primary concern.

I tell you, Foreign Minister, that, in two weeks’ time, President Trump has passed an immigration policy that is more effective than that of your entire cabinet as long as it has existed. As long as it has existed. They did it. And I tell you something else. If we in the Netherlands, in Europe, had done what Mr Trump does – namely close the borders to people from places such as Syria – then these people, including terrorists, would not have come our way and then a lot of innocent people, innocent victims of terrorism in Europe, would still be alive today.

Speaker of the House:
And your question is?

Wilders:
So stop shedding crocodile tears. My question is: Learn from Trump and stop chickening out like cowards.

Foreign Minister Bert Koenders:
I would like to say to Mr Wilders that what he proposes is exactly what is ineffective in the fight against terrorism, namely the famous divide and rule. Ensure that the people in your own society no longer have any rights. Ensure that you look away when it comes to human rights. Ensure that the Iraqis, with whom our soldiers at the moment are fighting against ISIS, have no rights anymore and that the countries, from which terrorists obviously do not come, are the ones on this list.

The chaos we now see in the international world when it comes to air travel, does nothing to do increase the security of our people. On the contrary, it tears people apart. I will tell you one thing from my experience as foreign minister who frequently visits the Middle East: If you want to fight terrorism the worst thing you can do is to trample human rights, conduct a divide-and-rule policy and so-called screen people, whether they be Christians, Jews or Muslims, and not look at what can really protect us. I address you, because we are at the moment at a central point in the Netherlands and the world. We need to fight against terrorism together. If we fail to do it together, but exclude, then I guarantee you that the fight against terrorism will not be effective and that your position is one of insecurity.

Wilders:
A lot of words, but absolutely no content. What this minister, Mrs Merkel and Prime Minister Rutte have done – what is written large on their foreheads – is open borders. Come on in everyone, do come in. Even when you have a fake passport or no identity card, come on in everyone. And we’ve seen what happens then. We have seen that with the asylum influx, the tsunami of asylum seekers, which was already disruptive in itself, terrorists have come along from countries such as Syria – because you agreed with it, because you refused to check them – who, all over Europe, from Paris to Berlin, have murdered innocent people. You’d better stop talking about security! Just stop it. Because of the open borders and bringing people from Islamic countries here, attacks were committed in Europe. Stop the lies!

Swiss authorities are currently investigating 480 suspected jihadists in the country.

“Radical imams always preached in the An-Nur Mosque… Those responsible are fanatics. It is no coincidence that so many young people from Winterthur wanted to do jihad”. — Saïda Keller-Messahli, president of Forum for a Progressive Islam.

Switzerland is the answer to those who claim that Islamic terrorism is reserved for those countries that have participated in operations against ISIS or other Muslim terror organizations. Switzerland has done neither, yet its flag figured among sixty other enemy flags shown in an ISIS propaganda video.

“Huge sums of money from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey are flowing to Switzerland… There is a whole network of radically-oriented mosques in Switzerland. The Muslim World League is behind it…. The network is a hub for Salafists. The Swiss authorities make a big mistake of not looking into the mosques.” — Saïda Keller-Messahli.

There are around 70 Turkish mosques financed directly from Turkey through the Diyanet Foundation in Switzerland.

The Swiss government appears to give Qatar, one of the primary propagators of Wahhabi Salafism in the world today, extremely special treatment.

In November 2016, Swiss police arrested the imam of the An’Nour mosque in Winterthur, in the canton of Zürich, for calling for the murder of Muslims who refuse to participate in communal prayer. The young imam, who had come from Ethiopia, had been in Switzerland for only a short time. The Zurich Federation of Islamic Organizations (Vioz) declared it was “shocked”, and suspended the An’Nour mosque from the federation until further notice: “We are shocked that an imam in one of our houses of prayer called for violence.”

There is little cause for “shock”. Already in 2015, Winterthur made headlines in Switzerland as an emerging center for young Muslims with jihadi ambitions. Four people from Winterthur managed to travel to Syria to join ISIS and a fifth was stopped at the airport in Zürich.

In November 2015, Swiss journalist and Syria expert, Kurt Pelda said, “The IS has a cell in Winterthur in the vicinity of the An’Nur Mosque in Hegi, there is no longer any doubt.” He also said that in addition to the five known cases, another man from Winterthur had travelled to Syria as well.

The former president of the Islamic Cultural Association of An’Nur, Atef Sahoun, denied all claims at the time:

“If we discover radical tendencies in one member, then the appropriate person will be immediately excluded. We send them away, no matter who it is”.

Atef Sahoun was arrested for incitement in November 2016, along with the Ethiopian imam, but later released.

Saïda Keller-Messahli, Islam expert and president of Forum for a Progressive Islam, says that the arrested imam from the An’Nour mosque is only “the tip of the iceberg”:

“Radical imams always preached in the An-Nur Mosque… Those responsible are fanatics. It is no coincidence that so many young people from Winterthur wanted to do jihad”.

After five days of MSM hysteria, President Trump remains justifiably unruffled by the establishment organs’ opprobrium. His January 27 executive order on immigration and refugees is reasonable and legal, and it enjoys strong popular support.

In the medium-to-long term Trump has much bigger fish to fry than a temporary ban on citizens from seven failed, war-torn, or dysfunctional majority-Muslim states, which were singled out by the Obama Administration under the 2015 Terrorist Travel Prevention Act. Prima facie this was no “Muslim ban”; the most populous majority-Muslim countries (Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Turkey) were unaffected. The really important part of Trump’s executive order is contained in its Section 1. Purpose:

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Demanding an aspiring newcomer’s commitment to this country’s core values comes as a breath of fresh air. Without naming it, Section 1 implicitly treats orthodox Islam as a violent ideology inimical to America’s “founding principles.” It can and probably will be used to severely restrict immigration of devout, practicing Muslims to the United States. Its drafters displayed awareness that a person’s Islamic faith and outlook is incompatible with the requirements of personal commitment and loyalty to a pluralistic and democratic society.

The Executive Order was carefully crafted: for a Muslim to declare that he accepts the Constitution of the United States as the source of his highest loyalty is an act of apostasy par excellence; and apostasy is punishable by death under the Islamic law. The Sharia, to a Muslim, is not an addition to the Constitution and laws of the United States, with which it coexists; it is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah’s authority on the basis of his revealed will, and America is therefore illegitimate ab initio.

Section 1 effectively demands that a Muslim gives up this key tenet of his faith in order to be eligible for admission. Its drafters knew that a foreigner who becomes naturalized has to declare, on oath, “that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”