PROF RODRIGUE TREMBLAY

“Millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. They will not go as friends. They will go to win, and they will by populating it with their sons. The fertile wombs of our women will allow us to conquer Europe and the world.“ —Houari Boumedienne (1932-1978), Algerian military man and president of Algeria, (in a speech at the United Nations, in Sept 1974, advocating the Ummah, i.e. a global Islamic nation.)

“The mosques [in Western countries] are our barracks, the domes are our helmets, the minarets are our swords, and the faithful are our army” —Recep Tayyip Erdogan (1954- ), Turkish Prime Minister, (comment made in Dec. 1997, when he was Mayor of Istanbul.)

“Seeking proof [about religion] misses the point of religion. It is what it does that matters.” —Hilary Putnam (1926-2016), American philosopher, (as quoted in The Economist, March 26, 2016

“Islamist movements, supported by Western courts, try to prevent any criticism of Islam. We should resist this wind of inquisition in the interest of humanity. Western judges who support this inquisition are real useful idiots who expose their own countries to the worst dangers.” —Sami Aldeeb (1949- ), Palestinian-born Swiss university professor, and Director of the Center of Arab and Muslim Law, Switzerland, 2014

“This is, in theory, still a free country [the U.K.], but our politically correct, censorious times are such that many of us tremble to give vent to perfectly acceptable views for fear of condemnation. Freedom of speech is thereby imperiled, big questions go undebated, and great lies become accepted, unequivocally as great truths.” —Simon Heffer (1960- ), British journalist, (in The Daily Mail, June 7, 2000)

Global Research Editor’s Note

This article by Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay does not specifically address US-NATO initiatives to destabilize secular governments in Muslim countries leading to the installation of an Islamic State. These include Iran (1953, 1979), Afghanistan (1979, 2001) Iraq, (1991, 2003), Libya,  (2011), Syria (2011-2024). These actions –which include wars and regime change– have a  bearing on the flow of immigrants to Western Europe which is addressed in  Prof. Rodrigue’s article.

****

Introduction

Established religions have always had problems coexisting with governments and especially, in modern times, with democracy and the secular nature of societies. In the West, in fact, over time, a more or less hermetic separation has developed between religions and democratically elected political power.

This is because, in addition to maintaining places of worship, religions are social forces. They are competing organizations of power over people and society, with a structured system of beliefs, mysteries, ‘revealed’ truths, doctrines, dogmas, rules and laws, symbols, texts and images, rites and practices. Religious authorities often base their power over people on concepts of the supremacy of abstract divine powers.

While some established religions are highly centralized, others are much less so, and they reflect a plurality of views and types of operation.

I. Politically Structured Religions and Spiritual and Personal Religions, in a Democracy

Many people think that all religions are equal.

Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay (right)

This is only partly true. On the one hand, there are greatly politicized religions, based on sacred principles. They are highly institutionalized, centralized and omnipresent in terms of political influence in countries where they operate. On the other hand, there are also more philosophical and spiritual religions, mainly focused on the destiny of an individual’s soul and the transcendence of human existence, and they rely mainly on personal life practices.

In the first group, among Abrahamic-type religions, there are Christianity and Christendom and Islam and Islamism, the latter dating from the 7th century. These are religions that can be classified as political. In a second group, there are more philosophical religions whose historical source is mainly Asia, such as Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, etc.

II. Politicized Religions and Democracy

However, Christianity and Christendom have undergone transformations and reforms since the time when it was a dominant political religion in some parts of the world. They were even the source of holy wars.

In recent centuries, Christianity has become more of an individual and personal religion rather than a fundamentally political religion. It has gradually adapted to the advent of democracy in most Western societies and to more secular democratic states.

In this context, the ultimate and legitimate power in a democratic society emanates directly or indirectly from the people, and not from abstract divinities and their spokesmen on earth. In the formula of American President Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” It is also, in many instances, the principle of a more secular state.

The Special Case of Political Islam in the West

In contrast, Islam (the word means ‘submission’ or ‘surrender’ to the will of Allah in Arabic) and Islamism, that is political Islam in action, have remained more or less frozen in their founding dogmatism of the 7th century, and remain an eminently political and social religion. In countries where it is the majority, it often imposes itself as the only compulsory state religion, excluding all others. These countries could then become “Islamic republics“, some of them being openly theocracies, with very little separation between religion and politics.

The best known examples are Saudi Arabia (Sunni branch) and the Islamic Republic of Iran (Shiite branch), which are countries where religious leaders act as “supreme guides” and who play a determining role in the behavior of citizens as individuals, in politics and in social affairs, and in the overall running of society.

Some religions even rely on a religious police to make sure that revealed religious precepts are well observed by members and even by the entire population.

This is why, among all established religions, the case of Islam can be considered special.

Its principles are based on four main components:

• the Ummah is the global Islamic community or nation to which every believer must belong, with the common goal to advance the cause of Islam;
• jihad or ‘effort’ can refer, among other things, to an obligation of ‘holy war’ in order to propagate and, if necessary, impose Islamic principles by ‘the heart, by the tongue, by the hand and by the sword’ against the infidels;
• the Quran is the sacred book of Islam, much as the Bible is for Judaism and Christianity. It is supposed to bring together revelations from Allah transmitted orally by the archangel Gabriel and compiled by different authors, before being transmitted to the prophet Muhammad, in the 7th century;
• Sharia (Islamic law), like jihad, is taken from the Quran. Sharia represents the various doctrinal, social, cultural and relational laws, norms and rules that are addressed to believers.

The traditional reading of the Quran divides the world and humanity into two areas: the House of Islam, Dar al-Islam or “the world of submission to Allah” where Sharia applies and where Muslims live, and Dar al-Harb, “the world of war” against non-Muslims.

III. Unselective Immigration and the Clash of Civilizations Between Democratically Elected Western Governments and Political Islamism

By their history, laws and rules, Islam and Islamism constitute an  imminently political, proselytizing and conquering religion. It is a serious error to confuse them with reformed religions such as Christianity and other essentially personal and individual religions such as Buddhism.

If there are clashes between a political religion and politics, it is not only because there is competition for power but also because the foundations of a political religion often enter into a subversive conflict with the practice of democracy.

Indeed, when a political religion carries within itself a global political project, we can then speak of a ‘civilization’ with a common ideology, which creates, by extension, a predictable opposition between different civilizations—or even a Clash of Civilizations, according to the title of a book on the subject by American scientist Samuel Huntington (1927-2008), and published in 1996.

This is an expression suggested by the author to demonstrate how conflicts of civilization can arise when different political views or cultures find themselves juxtaposed on the same territory. Indeed, Huntington refers not only to a clash of religions but also to a clash between cultures.

IV. Factors of Social and Political Disintegration in Western Democracies

It is by no means unavoidable that Western democracies must disintegrate under the pressure of politicized religious cultures, especially when they are imported from elsewhere. Already, in France since 1905, in Italy since 1947 and in Spain since 1978, but also in Nordic countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and also in Switzerland, among others, concrete steps have been taken to adopt the principle of state secularism.

Indeed, if nothing is done and if governments let things happen, or worse, if they consider that their country is a kind of experimental social laboratory and promote the creation of diverse cultural areas, serious problems of integration are bound to arise.

In fact, in certain neighborhoods in France and in some other countries, there has been an emergence of so-called “No-Go zones“, where laws are hardly respected, and where the police dare to venture only with special reinforcement, under the threat of being attacked or worse. This could even deteriorate into a form of domestic terrorism.

.

A typical sight in the commercial areas of “94,” one of the most heavily Muslim areas of France. (Source)

.

The need to take action would seem urgent before the gangrene of social anarchy takes hold. This would require on the part of governments, political elites and the population in general, a serious awareness, a clear vision of the situation, courage and firmness, and the adoption of concrete masures to correct a phenomenon in evolution, before it deteriorates even further.

In the case of France, but also in some other Western countries, this stage is progressing after decades of carelessness, complacency, laxity, negligence, weakness and abdication of responsibilities on the part of public leaders. In many instances, the latter have placed short term partisan political interests above the long term interest of their nation in allowing communitarianism and ethnic ghettos to take hold.

It is not normal for a democracy to let its institutions wither away under the threat of totalitarian ideologies imported from elsewhere (see the frightening quotes from Boumedienne and Erdogan above).

V. There Are a Number of Ways to Prevent and Counter Social and Political Disintegration in the Face of an Uncontrolled Migratory Invasion

Here are a few policies to be considered:

1. A first type of intervention consists in denouncing as unacceptable and a threat to security the leaving of national borders unattended, in the face of un-welcomed and illegal immigration. A government that does not protect national borders is failing in its primary duties. —Peoples and nations, like individuals, have a natural right to protect their survival, their legitimate interests and their values, in the face of transgressions, from within or from outside.

2. A second form of intervention consists in adopting a responsible immigration policy, one that respects the receptive capacity of a population. —This is the principle that immigration must make a net positive and not negative contribution to a host country.

3. Thirdly, reinforcing laws of public education in order to protect children against exactions and intimidations on the part of proselytizing religious predators in public schools, particularly with regard to the democratic principle of equality between men and women.

4. Fourth, governments may want to make the granting of citizenship to new immigrants conditional on a contract of citizenship and integration into the host society. —No country and no government is under the obligation of accepting an influx of foreign individuals who have no intention of integrating into the host country.

Conclusions

The West (European and North American countries) is currently confronted, from within and from without, with a migratory wave of cultures and ideologies that in some cases are strongly opposed to Western democratic values; such is the case with political Islamism [which is often supported covertly by Western powers]

In the medium and longer term, such a phenomenon is a serious hindrance to the social integration of new immigrants, and it can represent a real danger for the cohesion, freedom, security and prosperity of citizens in the host countries.

On this issue, it may be a quarter to midnight in some countries. One day, it could be too late to act.

Some Western democracies are already threatened in their basic democratic nature. They must adopt integration measures in order to strengthen national laws and regulations and adapt them to new realities.

The primary objective should be nothing less than preserving the Western democratic system, which is based on the power of the people, against growing and corrosive encroachments from ideologies that are hostile to democracy and fundamental freedoms.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research’s Holiday Fundraiser

This article was originally published on the author’s blogsite, Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book about morals “The code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles” of the book about geopolitics “The New American Empire“, and the recent book, in French, “La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018“. He was Minister of Trade and Industry (1976-79) in the Lévesque government. He holds a Ph.D. in international finance from Stanford University. Please visit Dr Tremblay’s site or email to a friend here.

Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from InfoBrics

---

This article (Western Democracies and the Threat of Social Disintegration) was created and published by Global Research and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Prof Rodrigue Tremblay

*****

 

RELATED

How to deal with Islam

TOM ARMSTRONG

It didn’t take long for Islamists to make the headlines in 2025 did it? Shamsud-Din Bahar Jabbar, a Muslim, drove a pickup into fellow human beings celebrating the New Year on Bourbon Street, in New Orleans’ French Quarter, centre of the city’s famous Mardi Gras and a massive tourist attraction guaranteed to be crowded on New Year, in an attempt to kill as many of them as possible. At the time of writing, fifteen are known to have died.

The FBI instinctively denied it was terrorism, but the facts soon forced them to change their mind and admit that it was, and I proceed on the basis that this is now a proven fact. And that it was a planned and co-ordinated attack by Islamists.

There is insufficient evidence to couple it with the Las Vegas explosion, but the MSM seems keen on relating the two, and I suspect that, because the two men involved were former US Army, they would love to turn this into a Right-Wing Extremist story. However, I do find the FBI ruling out a link between the two attacks so quickly suspicious.

The facts of the New Orleans attack are common knowledge and need no further comment from me. Instead, I look at why such attacks happen and the political response to them. I can imagine some of you rolling your eyes, thinking why waste time asking what causes these attacks. We know what causes them – Islam!

And that is a perfectly understandable response, and one that should be given a voice and debated extensively: Is Islam inherently and unchangeably violent? If it is, what should be done about it?  If it is not, why does it produce so much violence now, and what can be done to make it peaceful and tolerant?

While I believe that Islam can live in peace with people of other faiths, it would be foolish to deny that it very often doesn’t or that its fanatics, referred to here as Islamists, frequently resort to violence to extend their power. To deny this, and mindlessly repeat the moronic mantra that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’, and to try to pass terrorism obviously carried out in its name off as acts of mentally disturbed people who just happen to be Muslim, as so many Establishment politicians do, helps nobody but the terrorists.

The Establishment’s suppression of any debate on the nature of Islam and how to treat it in western societies of Christian heritage is savage. They have passed insidious hate crime laws to stop it and appear to be looking into blasphemy laws to suppress it yet further.  Every time someone raises such questions the idiotic Islamophobia cry is raised, and howling fanatics usually succeed in stopping any debate dead, with the intimidated, or complicit, MSM running a mile.

They do this because to freely debate what will soon become an existential question is certain to undermine two of the cornerstones of the Globalist Cultural Revolution, mass immigration and multiculturalism.

This is very much part of the problem. Muslims see this and think that we do not have the courage to do anything about it, that the Woke State will ensure that there are no consequences. This encourages the fanatics among them. Non-Muslims see the same and come to the same conclusion as Muslims, creating much, if suppressed, animosity which, one day, could explode and the innocent Muslim will suffer with the guilty.

Many Muslims are innocent, wanting to live their lives and let others live theirs. They do not want to kill kaffirs and would be happy to live peacefully with them. But the Establishment’s appeasement of the Islamist fanatics, who really do want to dominate, puts the fanatics in leading positions, which they do not hesitate to use in ensuring that moderate Muslims are kept under control and firmly within the Ummah. The absurd fantasy of multiculturalism, therefore, entrenches the fanatic’s control.

An example of this occurred after the New Orleans attack. It was reported that the mosque attended by Shamsud Din Jabbar urged its congregation not to respond to media inquiries and to refer to the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of Greater Houston Islamic (CAIR and ISGH) any questions from the FBI. CAIR has in the past aided families of ISIS-affiliated terrorists and even the FBI (reportedly) stopped dealing with it. In 2009 a federal judge ruled that there was evidence that it had links with Hamas, and the United Arab Emirates labelled it a terrorist organisation in 2014 – a decision that the Obama administration opposed. A CAIR executive director reportedly said that he was ‘happy’ about the October 7, 2023, terror attacks on Israel.

In my view, most of the leading Muslim organisations in the West – the ones governments deal with and give taxpayer’s money to – are likely to have very similar views. And in my opinion the blame for Islamic terrorism lies as much with government, here and across the woke western world, as it does with Islamism, the belief that political Islam must dominate the world and eradicate all other belief systems.

It is reasonable to assume that such organisations readily apply sanctions against Muslims integrating into western society or informing the authorities of impending attacks – especially when those authorities work so closely with these self-appointed ‘community leaders?

In a way, this helps answer the questions asked above, based on the reasonable conclusion that yes, violent extremism is an integral part of Islam, but it need not be an active part, let alone a dominant one. It can be tamed, and the Islam practiced here made tolerant. To do this leadership must be taken away from the militants and fanatics and placed in the hands of the moderates. Unfortunately, this can only be done through government, and none of the Globalist Uniparties will even think about it.  (Will Reform?)

But to start we all of us, moderate Muslims included, need to start accepting reality and to insist on the right of the British people to assert our own cultural and moral values on Muslims (and other new arrivals). If they don’t like it, they can leave.

We are at the stage now where, following an incident like the one in New Orleans, or that in Magdeburg, most people immediately assume that the perpetrator is a Muslim or Muslims. Almost always this is justified, and the frequent lies and evasions by the authorities, like those over the Southport murders, serve only to inflame passions and increase mistrust. It’s time we asserted our right to speak about this openly, regardless of what militant Muslims or mendacious politicians say. But to do this we need to replace the Establishment, or, better still, create a society without a permanent political establishment.

This short piece serves only to initiate a debate, a debate I hope you will participate in. We have to deal with a significant Islamic presence in our country, and my view is that this is best done by turning Muslims born here into good loyal British citizens. I want your views on how to do this. I take it as obvious that we need to repeal hate crime laws and end the balkanisation of Britain by ending multiculturalism and stopping mass immigration dead and consider stopping immediately all Muslim immigration. Certainly, we need to force the authorities into taking immediate action against Muslim criminals, especially the Pakistani rape gang beasts,and to stop being afraid of accusations of racism or Islamophobia.

Going further, do we close Islamic schools, license Imams, ban Islamic dress, ban Halal food and so on? Can we do this without driving moderate Muslims into the arms of the Islamist fanatics.  I don’t know. But we will only make progress by talking about it.

Please let us know your views in the comments, or by submitting an article.

---

This article (How to deal with Islam) was created and published by Free Speech Backlash and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Tom Armstrong

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.