.

.
Library of Professor Richard A. Macksey in Baltimore

POSTS BY SUBJECT

Labels

Monday, September 19, 2022

Is the Jewish Democratic Council Really Jewish - or Just Democrats?


 

Is the Jewish Democratic Council Really Jewish - or Just Democrats?

by

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18772/jewish-democratic-council

  • This organization -- the Jewish Democratic Council -- is misnamed. It recruits members and solicits money based on false advertising. It promotes itself as comprised of pro-Israel Jews. But the reality is that its leadership consists mainly of progressive Democrats who just happen to be Jewish. For them Israel, Iran and anti-Semitism are peripheral issues.

  • That is increasingly true of many Democratic Jewish voters who prioritize other concerns over Israel, over the growing threat of anti-Semitism from the hard left and hard right, and over other issues that directly affect the Jewish people.

  • [T]hey obviously do not want to hear the perspective of this Jewish Democrat, because the organization is more united behind social policy issues -- abortion, gun control, the environment and the Supreme Court -- than they are about Israel. I was told by two people who attended the event that the word "Israel" was never even mentioned....

  • I shake my head in frustration at why so many left-wing Jewish Democrats are willing to abandon Israel and continue to vote blindly for their grandparents' Democratic Party without demanding that it marginalize its anti-Israel extremists.

  • We have no loyalty to the current Democrat Party, just as many of its most prominent officials seem to have no loyalty to so many of their Jewish supporters. We certainly should have no loyalty to organizations such as the Jewish Democratic Council that hides its true priorities behind the misleading label "Jewish." There is nothing Jewish about their agenda, which is to elect Democrats regardless of their views on issues of direct concern to the Jewish community and Israel.

The Jewish Democratic Council is misnamed. It recruits members and solicits money based on false advertising. It promotes itself as comprised of pro-Israel Jews. But the reality is that its leadership consists mainly of progressive Democrats who just happen to be Jewish. For them Israel, Iran and anti-Semitism are peripheral issues. (Logo source: Jewish Democratic Council of America/Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA 4.0 with modifications)

As President Joe Biden was returning from his productive trip to the Middle East, the Jewish Democratic Council was holding a fundraiser on Martha's Vineyard to support Democratic candidates in the 2022 midterm elections and to help elect a Democratic president in 2024. Former President Bill Clinton and former Senator Hillary Clinton were the guests of honor and speakers, thus suggesting that this organization purports to represent mainstream Jewish Democrats.

But it does not. It represents the left wing of the Democratic Party. It certainly does not represent mainstream Jewish voters who care about Israel and the growing threat of anti-Semitism.

At this so-called "Jewish" event, there was no discussion of Israel, or the existential threat it faces as Iran comes closer to constructing a nuclear arsenal. Nor was there any discussion of the increasing anti-Semitism within the so-called "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party, or of the decreasing support for Israel among some younger Democrats and among some Democratic office holders.

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman recently predicted that Biden might be the last pro-Israel Democratic presidential candidate. Among those being considered to replace Biden either in 2024 or 2028 are several who are stridently anti-Israel and some who are lukewarm. Current Democratic Members of the House include some who wrongly regard Israel as an apartheid state akin to South Africa until 1993, and others who would cut off military assistance to the nation state of the Jewish people. Still others, including some Democratic Senators, are hyper-critical of Israel and want to see a reassessment of United States policy toward our strongest ally in the Middle East.

Had I attended the Martha's Vineyard event, I would have expressed my concerns about the growing abandonment of Israel by the left wing of the Democratic Party. But they obviously do not want to hear the perspective of this Jewish Democrat, because the organization is more united behind social policy issues -- abortion, gun control, the environment and the Supreme Court -- than they are about Israel. I was told by two people who attended the event that the word "Israel" was never even mentioned, although Biden's recent visit to Israel was headline news. The omission of Israel was confirmed by the organization's own website.

It is difficult to imagine any other ethnic or other group of Democrats -- Blacks, Arabs, gays -- that would not even mention the issues of direct concern to that group at a large fundraiser. Why are Jewish Democrats different?

This organization -- the Jewish Democratic Council -- is misnamed. It recruits members and solicits money based on false advertising. It promotes itself as comprised of pro-Israel Jews. But the reality is that its leadership consists mainly of progressive Democrats who just happen to be Jewish. For them Israel, Iran and anti-Semitism are peripheral issues. That is increasingly true of many Democratic Jewish voters who prioritize other concerns over Israel, over the growing threat of anti-Semitism from the hard left and hard right, and over other issues that directly affect the Jewish people.

I shake my head in frustration at why so many left-wing Jewish Democrats are willing to abandon Israel and continue to vote blindly for their grandparents' Democratic Party without demanding that it marginalize its anti-Israel extremists. I understand the reluctance of some traditional Jewish Democrats to vote for Republicans who oppose liberal social policies. I share that reluctance. Hence my frustration.

More and more Jews are expressing this frustration by voting for candidates who support Israel without regard to their party identification. To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan: they do not believe they have left the Democratic Party; they believe the Democratic Party is leaving the millions of Jews who think more like moderate Republicans such as Mitt Romney than radical Democrats such as Bernie Sanders.

Many, like me, will continue to vote for and contribute to the candidates who we think are best (or least worse) for our country, for the world and for Israel. We expect that these candidates will generally be Democrats. But if they are not, then we will vote for their opponent. We have no loyalty to the current Democrat Party, just as many of its most prominent officials seem to have no loyalty to so many of their Jewish supporters. We certainly should have no loyalty to organizations such as the Jewish Democratic Council that hides its true priorities behind the misleading label "Jewish." There is nothing Jewish about their agenda, which is to elect Democrats regardless of their views on issues of direct concern to the Jewish community and Israel.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Law School, and the author most recently of The Price of Principles: Why Integrity Is Worth Its Consequences. He is the Jack Roth Charitable Foundation Fellow at Gatestone Institute, and is also the host of "The Dershow," podcast.

 

The US Must Ditch Its Incoherent Policy on Taiwan

 

The US Must Ditch Its Incoherent Policy on Taiwan

by

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18791/us-policy-taiwan

  • Russia's invasion of Ukraine, moreover, provides a timely illustration of what can happen when the West does not take sufficient action to safeguard the security of its allies.

  • In February, for example, the US approved a $100 million support package to improve the island's missile defences, which were designed to improve its Patriot missile defence system. But bureaucratic wrangling in Washington means Taipei has still to receive the support it needs.

  • Consequently, now that Beijing has provided the West with its military template for intimidating Taiwan, this has provided the US and its allies with an indication of the military defences, such as anti-missile, anti-aircraft and anti-warship missiles, to thwart any future Chinese attack.

  • So if Washington, as the Biden administration keeps insisting, is really serious about defending Taiwan from Chinese aggression, then it should get off the fence and abandon its confused policy of "strategic ambiguity" in favour of one that will deter future acts of Chinese aggression against this freedom-loving island state.

China's extreme military response to Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan sends an unequivocal message to the US that it can no longer sustain its policy of "strategic ambiguity." Pictured: A Communist Chinese military jet flies over Pingtan island, one of China's closest points to Taiwan, in Fujian province on August 6, 2022. (Photo by Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)

China's extreme military response to Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan sends an unequivocal message to the US that it can no longer sustain its policy of "strategic ambiguity."

At a time when the very existence of the democratic island state is under threat from China's communist rulers, what Taipei badly needs is unconditional declarations of support from its Western allies, not the diplomatic equivalent of sitting on the fence, which essentially sums up the Biden administration's inadequate response to date.

Although the Chinese military committed numerous violations to Taiwan's territorial integrity in the days immediately following Pelosi's visit, the Biden administration shows no sign of abandoning the policy of "strategic ambiguity" that has defined Washington's approach to the Taiwan issue for decades.

The origins of this policy date back to US President Richard Nixon's infamous visit to China in 1972, which eventually led Washington officially recognising the communist regime in Beijing. By doing so the US abrogated the mutual defence pact it had signed with Taiwan in 1954.

Even though Congress tried to repair the damage by passing the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979, Washington technically remains under no obligation to come to Taiwan's defence, despite its having agreed to provide Taiwan with "arms of a defensive character". That is pretty much how the arrangement has stood ever since, with the US offering vague offers of military support for Taiwan without making any concrete commitments that might upset China's communist rulers.

The obvious shortcomings of this policy were highlighted in May when President Joe Biden, during a visit to Japan, caused confusion by claiming that the US would use military force to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack.

Within 24 hours the president's remarks had been "clarified" by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who insisted that there had been no change from America's commitment to the "One China" policy, which holds that the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China while acknowledging that Washington maintains unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan, the complicated diplomatic formula first conceived by the Nixon administration.

The extreme nature of China's military response to the Pelosi visit, though, means that, if the US really is serious about safeguarding Taiwan's independence, it must ditch its incoherent policy of strategic ambiguity, and instead concentrate its efforts on providing Taipei with the military support it needs to defend itself against future acts of Chinese aggression -- and deterrence, deterrence, deterrence. That was the main ingredient missing in the run-up to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and precisely what invited Putin's aggression.

Pelosi may stand accused of grandstanding over her visit to Taiwan, but no one should deny her right to visit Taiwan.

In the free world, people should be able to come and go as they please without fear of intimidation by freedom-hating despots.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine, moreover, provides a timely illustration of what can happen when the West does not take sufficient action to safeguard the security of its allies.

In February, for example, the US approved a $100 million support package to improve the island's missile defences, which were designed to improve its Patriot missile defence system. But bureaucratic wrangling in Washington means Taipei has still to receive the support it needs.

This type of administrative prevarication must change if Taiwan is to receive the military support it requires to defy Chinese aggression.

From America's perspective, one of the advantages of China's recent demonstration of military strength against Taiwan is that it provides an indication of how Beijing would set about isolating Taiwan if it came to open conflict. It is well-known in Western military circles that China, despite the enormous investment it has made in recent years in its military, simply does not have the ability to launch a military invasion to seize control of the island.

China's experience, moreover, of the challenges posed by modern-day warfare is extremely limited compared with the US and its allies. The last time China was directly involved in military conflict was the Korean war in the 1950s; its military badly lacks the combat experience to conduct a successful invasion of another country, especially one surrounded by sea.

The fact, therefore, that China's military intimidation of Taiwan this month essentially consisted of deploying warplanes and warships and firing missiles indicates that, in the event of Beijing launching military action against the island, it would mainly consist of seeking to blockade Taiwan, rather than launching an amphibious landing operation, which would be an enormous undertaking and one that would most likely end in disaster for China.

Consequently, now that Beijing has provided the West with its military template for intimidating Taiwan, this has provided the US and its allies with an indication of the military defences, such as anti-missile, anti-aircraft and anti-warship missiles, to thwart any future Chinese attack.

So if Washington, as the Biden administration keeps insisting, is really serious about defending Taiwan from Chinese aggression, then it should get off the fence and abandon its confused policy of "strategic ambiguity" in favour of one that will deter future acts of Chinese aggression against this freedom-loving island state.

Con Coughlin is the Telegraph's Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

 

Forget Free Speech: Rushdie's Fatwa Is Winning

 


Forget Free Speech: Rushdie's Fatwa Is Winning

by

 https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18815/free-speech-rushdie-fatwa

  • "If only more people could follow his example, instead of taking the path of appeasement in the name of cultural sensitivity, the long years of murder and mayhem wrought by the Islamists on the West might come to an end." — Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Unherd, August 7, 2022.

  • [A] terrible and different reality: the fatwa is gaining ground...

  • Islamic extremists in 2012 published a terrifying "most wanted list", like those of the FBI. Title: "Yes we can. A bullet a day keeps the infidel away.... " What happened to the faces and names on that list? They have been killed, left the public arena to protect themselves, or died under police protection.

  • We do not even know they exist: our fearful conformist press never tells their amazing stories. They live among us, in Paris, London, Oslo, Copenhagen, Berlin, Amsterdam and all the other European capitals. They live according to a strict security protocol: they have to tell the police in advance what they will do during the day, who they will see and where they will go and, if any place is not considered safe, these victims are forced to change plans.

  • "Anyone who criticizes Islamism must expect to be violently attacked in this country and without anyone being offended." — Jan Aleksander Karon, journalist, Tichys Einblick, August 20, 2022.

  • "Give us his head," Islamists shouted outside a British school in Batley. They wanted to murder a teacher whose name we do not even know and who was forced to leave the school after heavy death threats. What was he guilty of? Having shown in class some of the Mohammed cartoons during a lesson on freedom of expression.

  • All decent people should stand with Salman Rushdie and against his persecutors. Is it now a little bit clearer that radical Islam is today one of the biggest threats to Western culture and that we are not winning, but instead becoming like turkeys celebrating Thanksgiving?

"Salman Rushdie is a champion of free speech, bravely standing up for Western ideals when so many shy away from the fight. If only more people could follow his example, instead of taking the path of appeasement in the name of cultural sensitivity, the long years of murder and mayhem wrought by the Islamists on the West might come to an end." — Ayaan Hirsi Ali (pictured). Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images

"Salman Rushdie is a champion of free speech, bravely standing up for Western ideals when so many shy away from the fight. If only more people could follow his example, instead of taking the path of appeasement in the name of cultural sensitivity, the long years of murder and mayhem wrought by the Islamists on the West might come to an end... I know all too well the threat Islamism poses. After I came out as an apostate, I was forced into a bubble of protection that still surrounds me to this day. I have 24-hour security. I still receive death threats. My friend, the sweet, vulgar, brilliant Theo Van Gogh was murdered simply for making a film with me. His attacker used a knife to stab a letter into Theo's chest: it said that I would be next".

That is how Ayaan Hirsi Ali reacted to the attempted murder of Salman Rushdie in Chautauqua, New York.

Many of the slogans, paraphrases on "free speech" and demonstrations of solidarity to the author of The Satanic Verses hide a terrible and different reality: the fatwa is gaining ground, and more and more people have to live under protection due to criticism of Islam. In the words of the Algerian writer Boualem Sansal writing for L'Express last week:

"[T]o speak only of France, the police will soon no longer be enough, it will be necessary to recruit battalions or form a new body of bodyguards, who know Islam and can recognize under which dress it is presented."

Islamic extremists in 2012 published a terrifying "most wanted list", like those of the FBI. Title: "Yes we can. A bullet a day keeps the infidel away..." What happened to the faces and names on that list? They have been killed, left the public arena to protect themselves, or died under police protection.

The Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks died with his police guards in a terrible car accident. As journalist Douglas Murray explained:

"Lars Vilks was a man and artist of enormous courage. He should never have been in this situation, and if other artists and others across Europe hadn't been so cowardly then he never would have been".

Carsten Juste, who as editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten published the cartoons on Muhammad in 2005, apologized and left journalism. Flemming Rose, the editor of the Jyllands Posten who commissioned the cartoons (the Taliban put a bounty on his head), resigned and published a book with the eloquent title The Tyranny of Silence. "The drama and the tragedy is that the only ones to win are the jihadists," Rose told the Danish newspaper Weekendavisen.

Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist of the most famous of the Danish cartoons, passed away in his "bunker house" where Islamists had tried to assassinate him.

Molly Norris, a Seattle Post cartoonist, became a "ghost". She changed name and disappeared. Nothing is known about her after the FBI put her in the witness protection program.

Geert Wilders is alive only because he is protected by a military unit of the Dutch army generally assigned to ensure the security of the embassy in Afghanistan. Wilders still lives in safe houses and must wear a bulletproof vest during televised debates.

Stéphane Charbonnier, editor-in-chief of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, was murdered along with eight of his colleagues.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali left the Netherlands and sought asylum in the United States, where she is under around-the-clock protection.

Now there was the attempt to assassinate Salman Rushdie. "The lesson of this story is atrocious: Rushdie is alive, but the camp of the killers has not completely lost, it has even won a little", wrote Etienne Gernelle, the editor of French weekly Le Point. British columnist Kenan Malik told the BBC that if Salman Rushdie's critics "lost the battle", they "won the war".

The Egyptian-German scholar Hamed Abdel-Samad just recalled his meeting with Rushdie:

"'So, you are the Egyptian Salman Rushdie everyone is talking about?', Salman Rushdie said with a smile during our first and only meeting in Berlin three years ago. It was a celebration of the thirty-year anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and coincided with the 30th anniversary of the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini against Rushdie. 'Thirty years ago, there was a single Salman Rushdie in the world, today there is at least one Salman Rushdie in every Islamic country not to mention those in the western countries. That should please you', I replied".

We do not even know they exist: our fearful conformist media never tell their amazing stories. They live among us, in Paris, London, Oslo, Copenhagen, Berlin, Amsterdam and all the other European capitals. They live according to a strict security protocol: they have to tell the police in advance what they will do during the day, who they will see and where they will go, and if any place is not considered safe, these captives are forced to change plans. Often, if there is a not a new threat, they change homes, and disappear for a while to be protected by anonymity. They are not "repentants of the Mafia", mobsters turned into witnesses for the state prosecution. No, they are academics, activists, writers, journalists, intellectuals. We are talking about more than a hundred personalities in Europe. Their "fault"? They criticized Islam. Their precautions to protect themselves are never too many. Rushdie had ceased to be protected for many years.

A professor of Iranian origin and a critic of Islam, Afshin Ellian, works at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, where he is protected by bodyguards. On the second floor of the Law Department, where he teaches, Ellian can be reached through a corridor with electronic access and armored glass. The place looks more like a bank vault than a normal law department.

In Denmark, Lars Hedegaard, director of the International Free Press Society, who miraculously survived an attack at his home, is under police protection. An assassin dressed as a postman came to Hedegaard's front door in Copenhagen and shot at his head, missing him only narrowly.

The Turkish writer Lale Gül is under protection for having denounced Koranic schools in the Netherlands.

French journalist Zineb El Rhazoui has more bodyguards than many Macron ministers. "Zineb El Rhazoui must be killed to avenge the Prophet," reads a fatwa.

The new address of the Charlie Hebdo newspaper offices is secret and it has six armored doors and a safe room that the journalists can enter in case of attack. The entire editorial office of Charlie Hebdo is now protected by 85 police officers. Former Charlie Hebdo director Philippe Val lives in a house with bulletproof windows, police officers and an armored safe room where there is a special telephone line to call for help. Each Charlie Hebdo employee is always accompanied by a car with two policemen. If the need arises, another police motorcycle or armored car should arrive.

Mina Ahadi, who founded the Council of Former Muslims in Germany, does not move without an escort, and like the novelist Fatma Bläser, who was the victim of a forced marriage, is protected by the police.

Turkish-born lawyer Syran Ates, in Berlin, is protected by six police officers. "She receives three thousand threats," her lawyer said.

When Can Dündar, the bravest Turkish journalist, who as the director of the newspaper Cumhuriyet expressed solidarity with Charlie Hebdo, left Turkey for Germany, he would never have imagined that he would need the police protection. The biggest difference is that in Turkey, policemen searched his house looking for items to compromise him, while in Berlin they are guarding his home.

"Critics of Islam must fear for their lives: death threats and attacks," notes the German website Tichys Einblick.

"Anyone who criticizes Islamism must expect to be violently attacked in this country and without anyone being offended," said journalist Jan Aleksander Karon. "In Germany it is increasingly dangerous to criticize Islam".

In Denmark, the editorial office of Jyllands Posten today resembles a military bunker. With a razor wire barrier, bars, metal plates and cameras that surround the newspaper for a kilometer, the office is now protected by the same mechanism as river locks. A door opens, a car enters, the door closes and the one opposite opens. Journalists enter one at a time, typing in a personal code (a measure that did not protect Charlie Hebdo reporters). The Jyllands Posten cartoonists have escaped numerous attacks, including at home. Even after the January 7, 2015 massacre in Paris at the Charlie Hebdo office, which was targeted partly because it had republished the Danish Mohammed cartoons, Jyllands-Posten announced that, out of fear, it would not republish its own cartoons, saying:

"We have lived with the fear of a terrorist attack for nine years, and yes, that is the explanation why we do not reprint the cartoons, whether it be our own or Charlie Hebdo's. We are also aware that we therefore bow to violence and intimidation."

Also under protection is the French-Algerian journalist Mohammed Sifaoui. His photograph and name are published on jihadist websites next to the word "apostate". Many people under protection are women, such as Marika Bret, a Charlie Hebdo employee who was "exfiltrated" from home, and the French television presenter originally from Turkey, Claire Koc. Or the journalist Ophélie Meunier, the reporter from Zone Interdite who reported on the Islamization of Roubaix in prime time with the French politician Amine Elbahi, of the Républicains Party, who received threats of beheading.

Threats and intimidation demonstrate the tenacity of the journalistic work done by these courageous people. They demonstrate a commitment to show the Islamization by force and terror of sectors of French society, while the Islamists answer them: Do you disagree with me? Do you criticize me? I will kill you, slit your throat, behead you.

Meanwhile, the states and institutions, which find themselves trying to protect dozens of people, prove to be paper tigers. Terrorism works. Nobody wants to live between two cops or see his name on the internet. Meanwhile, the journalistic class goes looking somewhere less hazardous.

The French state has to protect simple teachers such as Fatiha Agag-Boudjahlat, who reproached some students for not respecting the minute of silence during the homage to Samuel Paty, a high school teacher who was beheaded by an Islamist.

Imams such as Hassen Chalghoumi are included in "Uclat 2", the protection program enjoyed by the ambassadors of the United States and Israel in Paris. Chalghoumi, protagonist of many battles in favor of the French Republic and against Islamic fundamentalists, told BFMTV that he has not slept more than three nights in the same place and that he wears a bulletproof vest during prayer:

"I never talk about it, but I have been wearing it for years. I take care of my life. I have responsibilities towards my family and myself. I continue to fight at a very high price. I cannot be at my mosque every day, it is impossible".

Professor Didier Lemaire recounted his last visit to Trappes for a TV documentary:

"I was only allowed a five-minute filming in front of the police station, surrounded by a dozen officers. The rest of the time I had to stay hidden in the car. One of the policemen told me: 'If they bring out the Kalashnikovs, we have nothing to answer with, so we won't stay long.' The reporter wanted me to say a few words in front of the school, but the police refused for security reasons. I was allowed to pass by without stopping. I was escorted to a hotel, whose entrance was guarded by four police officers, to conduct the interview".

"Give us his head," Islamists shouted outside a British school in Batley. They wanted to murder a teacher whose name we do not even know and who was forced to leave the school after heavy death threats. What was he guilty of? Having shown in class some of the Muhammad cartoons during a lesson on freedom of expression. He now lives in a safe house with his wife and children, out of fear of being killed. The threat is deemed so serious that not even the family's relatives know where they live. "The windows of the house where the teacher lived for more than eight years are covered with white sheets".

All decent people should stand with Salman Rushdie and against his persecutors. Is it now a little bit clearer that radical Islam is today one of the biggest threats to Western culture and that we are not winning, but instead becoming like turkeys celebrating Thanksgiving?

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

 

The "Great Reset": A Blueprint for Destroying Freedom, Innovation, and Prosperity

 

The "Great Reset": A Blueprint for Destroying Freedom, Innovation, and Prosperity

by

 https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18825/great-reset-wef

  • Notice that no nation has managed merely to print money and tax its citizens on the path to prosperity. Real wealth cannot simply be conjured from thin air. There must be recognized value in what a nation and its citizens possess.

  • More than any other source for national wealth, however, one towers above the rest: innovation. The ability of the human mind to create something new and valuable provides society with endless wealth creation.... Innovation is the magic sauce for generating wealth.

  • Humans struggling merely to survive in the world do not waste time, labor, or resources on projects that offer no prospect for future reward. Humans working as servants to the state under centrally controlled economies have no incentive to innovate. Only when private ownership and personal liberty combine can human innovation flourish. Freedom is the secret ingredient to innovation's magic sauce for increasing wealth.

  • A country whose institutions do not respect property rights or whose customs do not value freedom will remain a barren desert for human innovation. In this way, nations have a great incentive to liberalize over time. Should they not, they quickly become financially and militarily vulnerable to more innovative and wealthier nations. Observing this simple truth, classical liberals have always understood free markets as the gateway to human emancipation. Economic self-interest, in other words, ultimately leads to expansive human rights and liberties across the planet.

  • Nothing about Western politicians' embrace of the World Economic Forum's "Great Reset" or "Build Back Better" paradigms protects property rights or liberty in the slightest. The WEF's agenda promotes radically anti-liberal programs... [that] will smother human innovation by first depriving Westerners of their freedoms.

  • Wealthy free nations are a threat to the WEF's New World Order. If censorship must be embraced to control the "narrative," then so be it. If citizens must be denied freedom of movement under the guise of a "health emergency," no big deal. If private bank accounts must be seized to intimidate protesters, then such threats are the price for ensuring compliance. In this way, the WEF's plans for a controlled economy intentionally reverse centuries of liberal progress. Political leaders today are dragging the West into the past.

  • First, individual liberties will continue disappearing. Then, the greatest economic engine of all, innovation, will dry up. Finally, wealth will return solely to the hands of a small "ruling class" minority. This is the future the World Economic Forum hails as "progress." It is not. It is a recipe for human bondage.

Notice that no nation has managed merely to print money and tax its citizens on the path to prosperity. Real wealth cannot simply be conjured from thin air. A country whose institutions do not respect property rights or whose customs do not value freedom will remain a barren desert for human innovation. The World Economic Forum's agenda promotes radically anti-liberal programs that will smother human innovation by first depriving Westerners of their freedoms. Pictured: WEF founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab in Davos on May 23, 2022. (Photo by Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)

How do nations become wealthy? Many are blessed with abundant natural resources. Others conquer foreign lands. Some specialize in unique trade skills and crafts. Timber, mining, fishing, sugar, rum, narcotics, cotton, silk, agriculture, conquest, human slavery, manufacturing, oil, industry, banking, and so on — depending on the century and the region, nations have attained tremendous wealth in myriad ways. Notice that no nation has managed merely to print money and tax its citizens on the path to prosperity. Real wealth cannot simply be conjured from thin air. There must be recognized value in what a nation and its citizens possess.

More than any other source for national wealth, however, one towers above the rest: innovation. The ability of the human mind to create something new and valuable provides society with endless wealth creation. Unlike central bank quantitative easing and other monetary tools (or tricks?), the brain really is a money-printing machine. Whether an innovator alters existing farming, mining, or manufacturing techniques to make production cheaper and more efficient, or an inventor designs something entirely unique, value that did not exist yesterday materializes the next. Innovation is the magic sauce for generating wealth.

If innovation produces wealth, why aren't all nations wealthy? Because too many nations fail to value innovators or encourage innovation. Without fundamental property rights, strong social institutions, and a dependable legal system, potential inventors have few incentives to build anything new. Humans struggling merely to survive in the world do not waste time, labor, or resources on projects that offer no prospect for future reward. Humans working as servants to the state under centrally controlled economies have no incentive to innovate. Only when private ownership and personal liberty combine can human innovation flourish. Freedom is the secret ingredient to innovation's magic sauce for increasing wealth.

When economists crunch gross domestic product numbers to see whether a nation's economy is rising or sinking, a measure of innovation becomes quantifiable. Embedded within that number is something that encapsulates human ingenuity, personal freedom, and property ownership. In this way, economic innovation directly reflects the human condition at any point in time. It provides a measurement of a nation's freedom.

Now "liberalism" as it is classically understood — as a political philosophy embracing natural rights, limited government, free markets, political and religious freedoms, and freedom of speech, all promoted and protected by an impartial and just rule of law — has always grasped this fundamental truth. Liberty and property rights spawn creativity. Where both are soundly valued, great writers, artists, and inventors produce novelties that would not otherwise exist. It is why medieval Florence birthed at once both modern-day banking and the European Renaissance. The personal freedom to create, build, invest, and own property generates tremendous innovation and national wealth.

Conversely, when today's central planners argue for socialized control over markets and the substitution of "collective rights" in place of "individual rights" while calling their agenda "progressive liberalism," they co-opt and subvert liberalism's historic meaning.

From this recognition that a nation's freedom directly affects a nation's wealth arises an even more remarkable truth: any nation that fails to embrace and protect human liberty will be the poorer for it. A country whose institutions do not respect property rights or whose customs do not value freedom will remain a barren desert for human innovation. In this way, nations have a great incentive to liberalize over time. Should they not, they quickly become financially and militarily vulnerable to more innovative and wealthier nations. Observing this simple truth, classical liberals have always understood free markets as the gateway to human emancipation. Economic self-interest, in other words, ultimately leads to expansive human rights and liberties across the planet.

Now with all that as a bit of rudimentary background, how is it that today we have entities such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) pushing for a radical "Great Reset" of Western society that promises to handcuff free markets with economic regulation while concentrating power into the hands of a small international coalition of central economic planners — most notably their own? How could promising a future where people will "own nothing and be happy" possibly be conducive to a free and productive society — or even a happy one? How can a future in which all energy is controlled by international governing bodies and multinational corporations possibly provide individuals with the institutional building blocks for endless innovation? How can farmers sustain larger and more prosperous populations when Western governments continue to stifle agricultural production through regulation and eminent domain?

The questions answer themselves. The WEF's agenda promotes radically anti-liberal programs such as the use of artificial intelligence to censor dissent, regulate free speech, and even erase ideas from the Internet. Its repressive efforts to control all hydrocarbon energy and cattle and crop farm production will smother human innovation by first depriving Westerners of their ability to create, invent, and grow food. Its policies betray millennia of Western civilizational advancement by replacing respect for individual choice and free will with top-down management of human activity through the blunt instruments of force and coercion. Its motivations are indisputably anti-human at their core because each individual human life is treated as nothing more than a cog or input that can be manipulated as part of a centrally-controlled social machine. When Westerners are reduced to ones and zeroes that are sorted and shifted by the WEF's social programming codes for a "better future," builders obey but no longer create.

Whereas personal liberty has unleashed the human mind and generated tremendous Western prosperity, the World Economic Forum's push for a centrally controlled economic system will crush rights, stifle creativity, and mass-produce poverty and servitude. Its proponents, in fact, seem mostly committed to using a combination of pandemic, famine, and fear to centralize dominance for themselves.

In order to persuade Westerners to give up more and make do with less, the WEF and its globalist allies promise Westerners a future Utopia. As with every similar lie ever told to justify the extraordinary acquisition of power, though, they will fail to deliver. No society, after all, was ever promised more than in Stalin's 1936 Constitution of the USSR — or subsequently treated more abysmally. Despite its claims to the contrary, the WEF's mission directives intentionally reverse Western trends toward greater human freedom, social mobility, and more broadly obtainable wealth — or what, in another era, would have been rightly regarded as true, liberal progress.

Although the WEF and its sister organizations claim to be "saving the planet," their efforts seem primarily an ignoble design to control the planet. "Clean" energy, after all, is controlled energy; and the more that energy is controlled by centralized governments, the more completely once-free markets become centrally controlled. If every potential entrepreneur must first receive permission to use electricity before producing anything new, then no entrepreneur can thrive without the central authorities' blessing. If all manufacturing is viewed as a "threat to the planet," then no independent upstart can innovate or build wealth without first seeking and obtaining government approval. If consumers are forbidden from buying anything unless it is first pre-approved, then free markets are transformed into controlled markets.

Taking this trend to its logical yet communist conclusion, private property becomes antithetical to the state's goals. We already see the ominous subversion of private ownership today with so-called ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) standards used to strong-arm industry goals and manipulate free markets. Because control over information makes control over markets more manageable, the more economic uncertainty that results from market manipulation, the more censorship we'll continue to see. Recently, even a senior economist who correctly stated that the American economy had entered into a recession found his research "fact checked" and "corrected" by the U.S. government's friends at Facebook. Where free markets are under attack, free speech is inevitably under attack, too. The individual blessings of liberalism are not easily dissected from the body politic without inevitably rendering liberalism's death, as a whole.

The issue today may be "climate change" or COVID-19 or "sustainable food supplies," but the stated issue never seems anything more than a public relations campaign for fooling the masses. It always appears to be merely a disposable excuse designed to seduce Westerners into handing a small cabal of "elites" power and control over everyone else. Convincing mankind to believe that free markets will inevitably lead to some kind of apocalypse increasingly looks like the only policy goal that matters. It may well be the most diabolical trick those with power have ever played against those with no power at all. Fear is used expertly as a torturer's tool to convince Westerners to forsake willingly their own freedom. The innocent mantra whispered into their ears is simple: Trust us, humanity, we will save you. The implication, however, is far more sinister: For your own good, you must be made to enjoy your new chains.

Notice that for the World Economic Forum to succeed in its mission to control all human activity, it must first destroy the sovereignty of nation states. Why? Because, as noted above, liberal nations that embrace freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and free market entrepreneurship foster innovation and great wealth. Any nation not encumbered by the WEF's market proscriptions will most likely continue to prosper, while those shackled to the "Great Reset" will most likely languish. This is why Western politicians have worked so hard together to push their "Build Back Better" proposals irrespective of the wishes of any one nation's voting citizens.

Wealthy free nations are a threat to the WEF's New World Order. If censorship must be embraced to control the "narrative," then so be it. If citizens must be denied freedom of movement under the guise of a "health emergency," no big deal. If private bank accounts must be seized to intimidate protesters, then such threats are the price for ensuring compliance. In this way, the WEF's plans for a controlled economy intentionally reverse centuries of liberal progress. Political leaders today are dragging the West into the past.

First, individual liberties will continue disappearing. Then, the greatest economic engine of all, innovation, will dry up. Finally, wealth will return solely to the hands of a small "ruling class" minority. This is the future the World Economic Forum hails as "progress." It is not. It is a recipe for human bondage.

JB Shurk writes about politics and society.

 

Europe's Twilight: Christianity Declines, Islam Rises

 

Europe's Twilight: Christianity Declines, Islam Rises

by

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18786/europe-christianity-islam

  • Comparing only the weekly frequency of Friday prayers in the mosque and Sunday Mass in the church, the future is clear: 65% of practicing Catholics [in France] are over 50 years old. By contrast, 73% of practicing Muslims are under the age of 50.

  • In an essay on L'Incorrect Frédéric Saint Clair, political scientist and analyst, explains that "the milestone of 10,000 mosques, at the current rate, will be reached around 2100". Will we have 10,000 full mosques and 10,000 practically empty churches?

  • "[A] mosque is erected every fortnight in France, while a Christian building is being destroyed at the same rate." — Edouard de Lamaze, president of the Observatory of Religious Heritage in Paris; Catholic News Agency, May 4, 2021.

  • "During my first trips to the Middle East, in the early 1980s, I did not see veiled women and gradually the veil spread everywhere. It is the sign of the re-Islamization of Muslim societies and, in this sense, it takes on a political and geopolitical dimension. It is part of a conquest strategy. France is in a state of self-dhimmitude.... a legal and political status applicable to non-Muslim citizens in a state governed by Islam according to a prescription of the Koran (9:29). [Dhimmis] do not enjoy equal citizenship with the 'true believers,' who are Muslims." — Annie Laurent, essayist and scholar author of several books on Islam, Boulevard Voltaire, May 19, 2022.

  • "...France, due to a colonial complex and a sense of guilt, anticipates a legal and political situation that is not (yet) imposed on it but which could be a day in which Islam it will be a majority and therefore able to govern our country.... [T]he situation is really worrying. Before it becomes dramatic, it is urgent to put an end to the concessions we are multiplying to Islamism by hiding behind our values. Because by doing so we erase our own civilization". — Annie Laurent, Boulevard Voltaire, May 19, 2022.

  • Christianity in Germany "seems stable, but in reality it is on the verge of collapse. Pastors and bishops, but also many actively involved lay people, see landscapes in bloom where in reality there is nothing but the desert ". — Markus Günther, essayist, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, December 29, 2014.

  • "Muslims, the winners of demographic change," headlined Die Welt. "US researchers predict that for the first time in history there will be more Muslims than Christians. Societies change. Even Germany's".

  • In Trier, Germany, where Karl Marx was born, the diocese announced an unprecedented cut in the number of parishes which, in the next few years, will be reduced from 900 to 35.

  • L'Echo, the main Belgian economic newspaper, says: "Brussels was at the forefront of secularization before confronting an active Muslim minority. The first religion in Brussels today is Islam".... Belgian anthropologist Olivier Servais confirmed a Muslim presence in Brussels at 33.5 percent, predicting a majority in 2030.

"A civilization is everything that gathers around a religion," said André Malraux. And when one religion declines, another takes its place. Comparing only the weekly frequency of Friday prayers in the mosque and Sunday Mass in the church, the future is clear: 65% of practicing Catholics in France are over 50 years old. By contrast, 73% of practicing Muslims are under the age of 50. Pictured: Fire consumes Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris, on April 15, 2019. (Photo by Veronique de Viguerie/Getty Images)

French writer André Malraux said it: "A civilization is everything that gathers around a religion". And when one religion declines, another takes its place.

Sarcelles, Saint-Denis, Mulhouse, Nantes, Chambéry, Strasbourg, La Rochelle... The impressive images of stadiums full of Muslim faithful, who arrived from all over France for the feast of Eid Al Kabir, seventy days after the end of Ramadan. In Saint-Denis, the city where the kings of France rest; in Nantes, the city of the Dukes of Brittany; in Strasbourg, the city of the cathedral and seat of the European Parliament, in Mulhouse, in the heart of Alsace.

"In forty years, France has become the Western European nation where the population of Muslim origin is the most important," wrote Vatican Radio. "It is not difficult to hypothesize that we are now close to Islam overtaking Catholicism." What if the overtaking has already taken place?

"France is no longer a Catholic country", writes Frederic Lenoir, editor of the magazine Le Monde des Religions. Le Figaro wondered if Islam can already be considered "the first religion in France." We are in the country where up to 5,000 churches are at risk of demolition by 2030, Le Figaro noted last month. Five thousand churches are at risk of disappearing within eight years, in a country lacking the political, religious and cultural will to keep alive a millennial heritage that represents France's deepest soul. Perhaps the imam of the Grand Mosque of Paris understood what was evolving when he suggested using abandoned churches as mosques.

German writer Martin Mosebach observed that the "the loss of religion destabilizes a country". When a society no longer knows how to give itself a reason to exist, others find one and the void left by Christianity is soon filled. Even an atheist like Richard Dawkins acknowledged that "the sound of the [church] bells is better than the song of the [mosque] muezzin".

Islam is taking over Europe's post-Christian ruins. It is estimated that today in France, for each practicing Muslim, there are three practicing Catholics. But if you dig deeper into this analysis, that relationship is about to be reversed. Comparing only the weekly frequency of Friday prayers in the mosque and Sunday Mass in the church, the future is clear: 65% of practicing Catholics are over 50 years old. By contrast, 73% of practicing Muslims are under the age of 50.

Hakim El Karoui, President Emmanuel Macron's advisor on Islam and a researcher at the Montaigne Institute, states that Islam is now the most practiced religion in France. "There are more practicing Muslims, between 2.5 and 3 million, than practicing Catholics, 1.65 million".

The same applies to the construction of new religious sites. Today, in France, there are 2,400 mosques, compared to 1,500 in 2003: "This is the most visible sign of the rapid growth of Islam in France," notes the weekly Valeurs Actuelles.

In an essay on L'Incorrect Frédéric Saint Clair, political scientist and analyst, explains that "the milestone of 10,000 mosques, at the current rate, will be reached around 2100". Will we have 10,000 full mosques and 10,000 practically empty churches?

Not only has the Catholic Church built merely 20 new churches in France in the past decade, according to research conducted by La Croix. Edouard de Lamaze, president of the Observatory of Religious Heritage in Paris, the most important organization that monitors the state of places of worship in the country, revealed:

"Although Catholic monuments are still ahead, one mosque is erected every 15 days in France, while one Christian building is destroyed at the same pace... It creates a tipping point on the territory that should be taken into account."

Annie Laurent, essayist and scholar author of several books on Islam, and whom Pope Benedict XVI wanted as an expert for the synod on the Middle East, recently said in an interview published in Boulevard Voltaire:

"Despite the repeated assurances of firmness of the state towards Islamism and its rejection of every separatism, the opposite is happening: the advance of Muslim culture in different forms. A progress that seems to find no more limits and obstacles. There is the cowardice of public authorities who give in to electoral calculations or clients, and also the complacency of a part of our elites whose militancy is steeped in progressive ideology...

"During my first trips to the Middle East, in the early 1980s, I did not see veiled women and gradually the veil spread everywhere. It is the sign of the re-Islamization of Muslim societies and, in this sense, it takes on a political and geopolitical dimension. It is part of a conquest strategy...

"France is in a state of self-dhimmitude. What is dhimmitude? It is a legal and political status applicable to non-Muslim citizens in a state governed by Islam according to a prescription of the Koran (9:29). [Dhimmis] do not enjoy equal citizenship with the 'true believers,' who are Muslims. The dhimmi can maintain his religious identity but must undergo a series of discriminatory measures that can affect all aspects of life, public, social and private. Not all Muslim states apply all of these provisions today, but they are in force in some countries. However that may be, the principle remains as it is based on a 'divine' order.

"Muslims translate 'dhimmitude' with protection, which tends to reassure us, but the most appropriate translation is 'protection-submission': in exchange for the freedoms of worship or other freedoms more or less granted to them, they may be subject to special provisions, including Sharia, with the aim of making them aware of their inferiority.

"If I speak of self-dhimmitude, it is to express the idea that France, due to a colonial complex and a sense of guilt, anticipates a legal and political situation that is not (yet) imposed on it but which could be a day in which Islam it will be a majority and therefore able to govern our country. It should also be noted that Islam lives off the weakness of the societies in which it settles".

How far will we go? "I don't know, but the situation is really worrying," concludes Laurent.

"Before it becomes dramatic, it is urgent to put an end to the concessions we are multiplying to Islamism by hiding behind our values. Because by doing so we erase our own civilization".

Just two months ago, we had seen the same scenes for the end of Ramadan. Six thousand of the faithful celebrated at the Delaune Stadium in Saint-Denis, outside Paris. "Allahu Akbar" resounded from the loudspeakers placed in the four corners of the stadium. The same scenes could be seen in dozens of other stadiums throughout France, and in small and medium-sized cities: in Garges; in Montpellier (10,000 of the faithful in prayer); in Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, a town of 30,000 inhabitants, 5,000 gathered in prayer at the stadium. The celebration also took place in Gennevilliers.

You can see the same advance of de-Christianization and the growth of Islam, with different intensities, everywhere in Europe.

In a dramatic article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, essayist Markus Günther explains that Christianity in Germany "seems stable, but in reality it is on the verge of collapse. Pastors and bishops, but also many actively involved lay people, see landscapes in bloom where in reality there is nothing but the desert".

"We are turning our backs on our culture" writes Volkert Resing in the latest issue of the magazine Cicero, speaking of the end of Christianity in Germany.

"In 2021, an average of 390 children were baptized every day in Germany. Ten years ago there were 800 baptisms a day. Last year, 359,338 people left the Catholic Church and 280,000 people left the Protestant Church. In both cases it is a new record. Last year 21.6 million people belonged to the Catholic Church and 19.7 million were Protestants. The number of Christians in Germany who are members of one of the two largest churches fell below the 50 percent mark for the first time. The fall of the Christian West? And who cares".

"For the first time in centuries," according to the German magazine Stern, "most of the people in Germany are no longer in the two great churches. A projection assumes that in 2060 only 30 percent will be Catholic or Protestant". For that date, all Christian denominations will have lost half of their current members. And if in 1950 one in two Catholics participated in Sunday services, notes the largest German weekly Die Zeit, today only one in ten people who say they are Christians participate in religious services.

"The importance of Islam in Germany will increase and that of Christianity will decrease, explains Detlef Pollack, professor of sociology of religion at Münster University and the country's foremost expert on religious trends, in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

"In 2022, for the first time, less than half of the Germans will belong to one of the great churches. There is a liquefaction. Muslim communities in Germany are undoubtedly vital compared to most Christian communities. By contrast Islam is a highly dynamic religion that aims at visibility".

For some time now, German public schools have been offering classes on Islam.

A Dresdner Bank study in 2007 predicted that "half of the churches in the country will close" and another that half of all Christians in the country will disappear. Within thirty years, according to the Pew Forum, there will be 17 million Muslims in Germany, compared to 22 million Christians between Catholics and Protestants, many of whom are only nominal (already today one-third of all Catholics are thinking of leaving the church) . The Muslim faithful settled in Germany will equal the total number of Catholics and Protestants.

This is a trend across the West. "Muslims, the winners of demographic change," headlined Die Welt. "US researchers predict that for the first time in history there will be more Muslims than Christians. Societies change. Even Germany's".

Between 1996 and 2016, Germany lost more than 3,000 parishes, down from 13,329 to 10,280. In Trier, Germany, where Karl Marx was born, the diocese announced an unprecedented cut in the number of parishes which, in the next few years, will be reduced from 900 to 35. Compared to their Christian counterparts, Islamic places of worship are growing; in the last 40 years, they went from non-existent to between 2,600 and 2,700. We realize how our world has changed only at the end of an epochal transformation.

Practically every day in the German press there are articles like this in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:

"Generations of believers got married in the Kreuzkirche in the Lamboy area of ​​Hanau, they had their children baptized and there they mourned the dead. But the days when the rows of chairs were occupied even during the classic Sunday functions are long gone. The upcoming sale is a bitter new experience for Hanau. The culprit is the continuing decline in membership. This is due to demographic change and the numerous Muslim residents no longer provide a basis for a Christian community".

538 abandoned churches and 49 newly built: this is the sad balance of Catholic churches in Germany in the last 20 years.

In Bonn, 270 churches will be abandoned, some of which can already be purchased on the diocesan online service.

"The Ruhr diocese wants to keep only 84 churches and 160 will have to be used for a new purpose... Mainz and Hildesheim want to halve their churches. Aachen has started a process of reducing buildings by 30 percent. The archdiocese of Berlin has also decided to reduce the number of churches by a quarter".

From the diocese of Münster this month:

"87 churches have been deconsecrated. In various locations, churches are used as retirement and nursing homes for the elderly. Two churches in Marl alone are used as urn burial places. Apartments are being built in the St. Mariä Himmelfahrt church in Greven. Similar projects already exist, for instance, in Dülmen, Gescher and Herten-Bertlich. The former church of Sant'Elisabetta now serves as a sports hall".

In the entire archdiocese of Munich, the hometown of former Pope Benedict XVI, there are today just 37 seminarians in the various stages of formation compared to about 1.7 million Catholics. By comparison, the American diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska currently has 49 seminarians for about 100,000 Catholics.

You can see the same disintegration happening in Spain. "Spain is the third country with the greatest abandonment of Christianity in Europe," reported Spain's major newspaper, El Pais. Cardinal Juan José Omella, archbishop of Barcelona, ​​has sent to all parishes a message announcing the suppression of 160 parishes in Barcelona, so that each can make its own contribution before the plan is implemented. A headline in El Mundo reads: "Barcelona closes parishes due to the loss of faithful... The archbishopric will leave only 48 of the 208".

In 2015, there were 1,334 mosques in Spain -- 21% of the total number of all places of worship in the country. During a six months period in 2018, 46 new mosques were built, bringing the number to 1,632 mosques for that year. Mosque numbers are growing at a rate of 20 percent each year. In 2004, there were 139 mosques in Catalonia and in 2020 there were 284, or 104% more, according to the Catalonia Department of Justice.

In Andalusia the number of mosques in one decade increased from 27 to 201; in Valencia, from 15 to 201 and in Madrid, from 40 to 116. Demography is the engine of cultural change. "By 2030," according to El Pais, "the Muslim population in Spain will increase by 82 percent".

The same situation exists in Austria. According to Die Welt:

"In Austria, the Catholic faith is in decline, Islam is on the rise. There will be far fewer Catholics in the future, while the number of Muslims and non-denominational people will increase significantly, experts predict. In 2046, one in five Austrians will profess Islam. In Vienna, Islam will be the strongest religion: in 30 years, one in three Viennese will be Muslim. The percentage of Catholics will be only 42 percent in the country, dropping to 22 percent in Vienna". In 1971, Catholics represented 78.6% of the population of Vienna; in 2001, just over half; in 2011, 41.3% and in thirty years Catholics will be only one third of the total."

If the churches are empty, 3,000 people gather for Friday prayers in Floridsdorf, the first mosque in Vienna. The mosque was officially erected in 1979 in the presence of the then President Rudolf Kirchschläger, Chancellor Bruno Kreisky and Cardinal Franz König. Today the muezzin can call to prayer three times a day.

Christianity is no longer the first religion; Islam has taken its place. This shift should be grounds for discussion, not to say of concern -- certainly not of cheerful indifference.

L'Echo, the main Belgian economic newspaper, says: "Brussels was at the forefront of secularization before confronting an active Muslim minority. The first religion in Brussels today is Islam".

The monthly Causeur reminds us that Le Vif-L'Express (the main French-language newspaper) published a provocative front page entitled "Muslim Brussels in 2030". Belgian anthropologist Olivier Servais confirmed a Muslim presence in Brussels at 33.5 percent, predicting a majority in 2030.

In Saint-Chamond, a French town of 35,000, the town hall recently ordered the disposal of the main church of the city, Notre-Dame, built in the 19th century. Closed for worship since 2004, deprived of the crosses that proudly towered over its spiers, this church, in view of its transformation into a cultural project, has just been condemned to deconsecration. Meanwhile, last week, near what remains of Notre-Dame, the muezzin called over the loudspeakers for the Muslim faithful to come to prayers.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.