RUTHFULLY YOURS

If you have entered a major sports stadium recently it will have been only after a bag search and, possibly, a body scan at the turnstiles — one example of the way in which the freedoms and safety we once took for granted are being inhibited. The only response is to speak frankly about the reason why.
In his excellent Quadrant essay, “Weaponising Our Weaknesses”, Edwin Dyga detailed the peril faced by Western civilisation and the maladies rendering us all but incapable of mounting a credible defence in the interests of its survival. That article identified the disease and outlined the dire prognosis if left untreated. What follows are the obvious and clinical steps which logic says governments must be encouraged to adopt as the most efficacious remedy.

The first and fundamental requirement is the changing of prevailing attitudes and the language that goes with it. Political correctness must be banished. The legal and moral acceptability of any view or opinion is to be determined solely by its veracity, irrespective of the way it is subjectively perceived by any group or individual. The only restriction on freedom of expression must be that which prohibits the expression of actual and outright hate and which advocates violence, as distinct from mere criticism or disapproval. Laws contrary to the letter or spirit of this determination — Section 18C, for starters – must be abolished. Our Western traditions take as a given that democratically elected governments will be champions of free and unfettered speech. Any hedged or qualified restriction on what can be said, written or broadcast betrays all those who, in many cases, gave their lives to win for all who came after the liberty of candour.

Next, with absolute confidence in the protection of the law and authorities, we must actually dare to say what we think. If, for example, you find the veiling of young girls an insult to our traditions of female emancipation, being told that such observations are “offensive” or, that universal catchall, “inappropriate”, cannot be accepted as a valid defence of repugnant cultural practices. Let those at the pointy end respond to such criticism on its merits or otherwise. Yes, harsh opinions expressed openly can be upsetting, but those that are suppressed fester and burst like toxic abscesses.

In daring to say what we know to be true, we must openly acknowledge and decisively proclaim that our civilisation, based on Judeo-Christian principles, is under mortal threat from Islam. It must be proclaimed, and proclaimed unambiguously, that we are determined to maintain our culture and customs and, further, that we firmly oppose all attempts, open and surreptitious alike, to change them. The inevitable objections by Muslim leaders and non-Muslim “progressives” is to be firmly and confidently countered by the wealth and breadth of empiric evidence, starting with Islamic scriptures’ assertion that the faith of Allah is divinely destined to rule the world. We must not be deterred by spurious accusations of racism and Islamophobia. Only the facts must matter. The inconvenient ones can no longer be swept under the rug in order to placate the habitually offended.

Imagine being a pro-coal activist — or a climate sceptic, for that matter — and enjoying open access to Australia’s schools. Inconceivable, right? But if you’re pushing Oxfam’s green myths and downright lies, there is a welcome mat outside very nearly every classroom.
Officially-encouraged child abuse involves greens’ lobbyists brainwashing primary and secondary-school kids. A leading lobbyist is Oxfam Australia, gearing up for a renewed assault this month on our idealistic and gullible schoolchildren.

Oxfam this Term 4 is pushing “Hunger Banquets” for kids — “a fun, eye-opening (and mouth-watering!) interactive and experiential learning event centred on the issue of global hunger: and particularly food insecurity resulting from climate change.”[1] Principals, teachers and their unions have put out the welcome mat[2] for Oxfam’s zealots and their green-drenched propaganda.[3] As Oxfam says, “The Hunger Banquets project is mapped to the Australian Curriculum (AC) cross-curricular priority of Sustainability. It is also accompanied by a whole heap of classroom resources, linked to AC Geography Yr 9, AC English Yrs 7-10, and AC Health.”

Oxfam Australia, the $110 million local arm of the global $A1.5 billion international charity behemoth, will “help you [teachers] bring social justice into the classroom.”

“Social justice” includes Oxfam exhorting kids’ pocket money into its own coffers:

“Hunger Banquet money box: Download our moneybox template if you’re asking Hunger Banquet participants for a gold coin donation or raising money for Oxfam’s work in other ways. Handy tip: Sticking your printout onto a manila folder or old cereal box will make your moneybox more sturdy.”

It matters not that half our kids’ parents are conservative voters. There is no push-back from conservative politicians: parents have to suck it up. Moreover, Oxfam is hardly the sole green-left-socialist indoctrinator with entrée to classrooms. Come on in, Greenpeace, plus the Australian Conservation Foundation, Youth Climate Coalition, GetUp, teams of Al Gore’s indoctrinators, the Australian Academy of Science, World Wildlife Fund, Cool Australia– each and every one promoting and cross-promoting[4] students with activist urgings. I asked a Liberal Party tactician what the party could do about all the brainwashed future greens voters emerging from high schools, and he said he had no idea.

Oxfam also throws its weight behind the cross-gender-promoting and Marxist-inspired Safe Schools indoctrination, mandated in Victoria by CFMEUpuppet premier, Dan Andrews. Oxfam says,

We are proud to stand in solidarity with, and state our support for, Safe Schools Coalition Australia … as an ally in working towards a world that is more just, peaceful, harmonious and fair.”

No kid is too young to escape the Oxfam net. Oxfam wants to saturate schools at class-, year- and whole-of-school level, pegging “hunger banquets” in particular to World Food Day , October 16.[5] Oxfam’s Hunger Banquets involve kids sorting themselves into high, medium and low-income groups, corresponding to global regions. Most kids get only a cup of rice and water for the lunch, but the small group of First Worlders win a tummy-filling three courses that includes Italian pasta. Point made. Except that the point is a bucketful of Oxfam bull faeces: “Hungry for a fair climate? Climate change is the single biggest threat in the global fight against hunger.”

LONDON—Britain’s government should do more to resettle Syrian refugees and strengthen border controls to clamp down on the smuggling of migrants, an influential committee of U.K. lawmakers said in a report to be published Wednesday.

The cross-party panel also criticized the European Union’s handling of the migrant crisis, saying the EU failed to anticipate and tackle the crisis and has done “too little, too late,” according to an advanced copy of the report by the Home Affairs Committee, which examines the U.K.’s interior ministry.

“Europe’s efforts to address this colossal refugee crisis has been lamentable,” said Keith Vaz, a member of the opposition Labour Party, who heads the panel. While it has no formal powers to compel the government to act, the committee’s high-profile role can shape political debate.

In the U.K., committees comprising lawmakers publicly scrutinize the workings of different government departments, providing oversight and advice.

The report’s publication follows the U.K.’s June vote to leave the EU. Polls showed unease about the rise of immigration played a big part in the referendum result. Despite these concerns, Mr. Vaz said it was imperative that the new British government stick to a commitment by former Prime Minister David Cameron to house 20,000 Syrians by 2020 as part of a program to relocate refugees from camps to the U.K. Mr. Cameron had wanted the U.K. to stay in the EU and resigned after the referendum. He was succeeded by Theresa May.

According to the report, approximately 1,602 Syrian refugees have been processed under the program since Mr. Cameron made the pledge in September. Most have been resettled in Scotland and northern England. CONTINUE AT SITE

Who do you think made the following statement on X Radio?

She does not want France to become Muslim. There is a massive Arab-Muslim invasion. If we want to maintain our cohesion and cultural harmony, we have to make a new balance in immigration. With regard to radical Islam: “I want the Salafist mosques closed and demolished! We have a problem with the organization of Islam in France.

She is against the full facial veil, “walking advertisement for radical Islam.” Veiled women should be punished by law and deprived of their civic and social rights.

You’ll find the answer at the end of this update.*

I am an optimist because I believe in reality. No matter how hard people try to deny it, reality sticks to its guns. It won’t vanish. It keeps popping up and sooner or later they have to deal with it. That’s what will happen.

No, I don’t think the world is coming to an end. I don’t think Europe is finished. We received a report on two Polish experts that raised an alert on the imminent collapse of European civilization. My father z”l was born in Przemysl (near Lvov). His family left Poland in the early years of the 20th century. Those that stayed behind were, with rare exceptions, exterminated. If Europe didn’t end then, it might just as well stay on for the next session of the adventured-packed film, known simply as The World.

BFM TV covered the entire funeral service in the Rouen Cathedral for the slaughtered priest Jacques Hamel. A majestic, moving, carefully orchestrated ritual. I don’t think I have ever attended a Mass or seen one in its entirety. In their modest eulogies the priest’s sister and niece brought to life his down to earth warmth and decency. Hamel’s sister related two stories about her brother’s military service in Algeria. He chose to remain a simple soldier, refusing to accept a promotion to officer because he did not want to be in a situation where he would have to order the soldiers under his command to kill. On one occasion, he was the sole survivor of a “shooting” [Were they ambushed or had they gone into battle?] He asked why, why was I the sole survivor? And for his sister the answer is now, standing before us, the simple wooden coffin covered with a white chasuble and red scarf of martyrdom. Why did he survive? [To have his throat slit by an allahu akhbar neighbor?] To testify by his martyrdom to Christ’s sacrifice?