Assassination Exposes Iran as a Paper Tiger

If Donald Trump went back in time and assassinated Adolph Hitler in 1939, the New York Times, CNN and the rest of the liberal media would be condemning the gambit as a reckless escalation.
On the other hand, if  Donald Trump went back in time and murdered Mother Teresa, the conservative press would label her a threat.
Such is the state of American media today where the hatred or adoration of Donald Trump precludes any fair and impartial analysis. Issues are no longer judged on their merits and for Americans, Trump is always wrong or always right.

Even the so-called expert commentators are chosen by the respective networks for their political stripe and so it's fair to say that everything we hear about the assassination operation on General Qasem Soleimani on CNN is negative and positive of FOX News.

Let us step away from the partial and politicized media bias and take an allegorical journey to simplify what seems to be a complicated situation.

Think of Iran as a large and powerful drug cartel wishing to expand its influence into neighbouring countries. The cartel uses stealth, subterfuge and violence to eliminate and supplant any local competition or leadership in order to install its own members. However the drug cartel doesn't have a free hand and while the countries it is trying to overtake are relatively weak, they are however under the benevolent protection of the all-powerful Sheriff Donald and his super-powerful police force

The Sheriff has a trusty deputy named Moishe Israel who lives in a neighbouring country not yet under attack by the cartel but determined to check its advance by taking the fight across its border.
Moishe Israel is ruthless and unafraid. Moishe has superb weapons and a highly trained force that over matches the cartel.
And so Moishe Israel with the Sheriff's blessing, attacks the drug gang at every turn, bombing its bases and attacking its drug conveys, even going so far as to sabotage its installation back in its home base.
The drug cartel hates Moishe Israel even more than it hates the Sheriff and constantly threatens retaliation. But after three years of taking it on the chin, the cartel is unable or just plain afraid to confront Moishe Israel.
Instead, the drug gang accepts operational losses and shrugs off the setbacks in the same way they accept that a certain percentage of the drugs they are smuggling into a country will be intercepted by authorities, not unexpected or unanticipated, just the cost of doing business and so like an allied World War II convoy sailing the Atlantic, a certain level of acceptable losses to u-boats is the battle plan.

Despite the serious losses, the gang is loathe to directly confront either the Sheriff or his deputy Moishe, understanding clearly that to directly challenge and confront them is a losing proposition because, despite its power, the gang is vastly outgunned.
And so the battle lines remain static, the cartel attempting to expand its base to its neighbours, while the Sheriff and his deputy fend off these advances, a situation not unlike the stalemate of enemies in the World War I trenches.

But the Sheriff decides to up the ante and launches an operation to take out one of the highest-ranking members of the cartel, a ruthless gangster who has wreaked havoc and death throughout the region, but who is nonetheless a hero to the cartel.
The motivation for such an attack is questioned by some in the Sheriff's department and others in the media and of course by the Sheriff's political foes who claim that an assassination of the deputy cartel leader is a political distraction meant to deflect criticism of the Sheriff. They warn that the assassination would probably lead to a dangerous escalation and would likely lead to retaliation that might well lead to an all-out war.
Others in the Sheriff's department argue that the cartel will not escalate and summon as proof the failure of the cartel to actually engage Deputy Moishe, even after countless and countless losses over the years where the deputy has pounded and pounded cartel installations with impunity.
While the cartel howled and swore retribution, it proved to be mostly bluster.

And so the Sheriff launches a successful and masterful assassination, killing the deputy gang leader in a powerful display of intelligence and capability.

The gang is outraged and screams bloody murder, swearing that retaliation will be swift and powerful.
The world is frightened that an escalation is in order and as such holds its breath in fearful anticipation.
But the Sheriff is serene and promises more deadly attacks if the cartel replies, a threat that the cartel takes seriously believing the sheriff to be reckless and insane.
Back at gang headquarters the pain and humiliation are agonizing. The blatant hit on its number 2 is a message of utter contempt and a challenge to the gang leadership.

The cartel meets to decide a response because such an attack cannot go unanswered, or else they will lose serious face. While the cartel has plenty of firepowers, it is not nearly enough to take on the Sheriff and his deputy.
The cartel realizes it cannot go to war, because although it can inflict a lot of damage to the neighbourhood, it would end badly for them in the end.
The cartel, unlike its terrorist minions who have no problem attacking the Sheriff or his deputy, has a lot to lose.
Some members suggest using these proxy-agents to do the dirty work and attack the Sheriff or his deputy in its stead, but the Sheriff has already warned them that any attack will be considered a direct attack by the cartel.
What to do? What to do?

The cartel decides that there's no other option but a face-saving attack that will satisfy the rank and file, but  one that will not spur the Sheriff or deputy to action.
And so the gang lets it be known to the Sheriff that they will stage an attack that will be full of sound and fury but will, in essence, be nothing but a show.
The gang's leaders explain to their minions that they have too much to lose and too little to gain in confronting the Sheriff and his deputy head-on.

And so those who love the Sheriff and even those who hate the Sheriff are forced to face the reality that the Sheriff has won this round decisively and has exposed the Cartel as a paper tiger.
Nobody is more thrilled than Deputy Moishe who cannot resist telling the naysayers"I told you so."

The cartel is diminished and will soon be forced to rethink its expansion plans because (using a mixed metaphor) ....when push came to shove, the cartel blinked.

French Language Hysteria Hits Hilarious New Lows

Every time you think that the French language debate in Quebec couldn't get stupider it invariably hits a new low.
Two stories in the French press went largely unreported in the English media but bear repeating for those of us interested in the language debate.

Let's start with an absurd story written in the spirit of 'pastagate' and then move on to what I can only categorize as fake news.

Not many of us read the insufferable snobbish bore that is Denise Bombardier of Le Journal du Montreal, a hoity-toity self-proclaimed defender of classic French which she sadly reminds us is becoming more and more bastardized and debased because as she tells us, it's just plain too hard for the young and modern generation of doofuses to master.

In an article entitled  "Le pouvoir du lobby LGBTQ+"  (The Power of the LGBT+ Lobby) she rages against the LGBT+ activist community for trying to rid French from its natural Male/Female structure and its attempt to create gender-neutral pronouns.

The Quebec LGBT Chamber of Commerce, financially supported by the OQLF, has found a niche in the organization and has managed to instrumentalize it by imposing a progressive transformation of the French language, which as we know, use the masculine and the feminine....
...Thus the OQLF  somehow approves bi-gender words by proposing the use of terms that combine the masculine and the feminine form. For example, to replace the words brother and sister, it proposes 'frouer"and 'tancle'** to designate aunt or uncle. Not shying away from any obstacle or absurdity, the OQLF also suggests that the pronouns 'him' and 'her' should also be replaced....

....Taxpayers are subsidizing linguists who are debasing the French language, which amounts to destroying its genius, its beauty and its ability to define reality.

.... The Trudeau government is exemplary in showing unreserved tolerance for transgender demands. The Canadian passport now offers three options: male, female or other.

 ...Faced with these attempts which seek to impose upon the vast majority of citizens delusional diktats that have the sole purpose of accommodating a tiny percentage of the population, what are we to do? 
We simply must refuse to allow French in Quebec to be hacked by a lobby....

* -a combination of 'Frere' and 'souer' ed.
** a combination of 'Tante' and 'Oncle' ed.

Hmmm.... That was something unexpected!
I think she made a legitimate argument about defending classical French but totally descended into bashing transgenders when she couldn't resist the passport issue and thus reveals her  'vrai nature'
...Ha! Ha!

The second item is about another whining diatribe in the Journal du Montreal over a poll that purports to indicate how francophones view their perilous language situation.

The reason I classify this story as fake news is because it is based on a poll, one that is totally contrived and without any real scientific merit.

As an old-time political organizer who used polling to determine where my candidate stood, I quickly learned how easily polls can be manipulated as well as how unreliable they can be.
Without getting into a long discussion on polling, suffice it to say that today, for a variety of reasons polling is more inaccurate than ever.
At its best, when voters are asked whom they are voting for, polls should generally get it right, but even then, none predicted a Donald Trump win and none predicted the size of the Boris Johnson majority.
Polling descends into the ridiculous when opinions are sought in relation to loaded questions which invariably deliver the results the pollster looked for.
Asking francophones if they believe that their language is in peril is like asking supermarket shoppers if food prices are too high. A question meant to elicit a contrived result that supports a foregone conclusion.
Like Heisenberg's 'uncertainty principle' which posits that observation changes outcomes, in polling terms, asking a loaded question delivers a loaded result.

Here's a portion of what was asked;

In your opinion, is the situation of French in Quebec currently better, the same or worse than it was ten years ago?

• Better:                               1%
• Same:                               29%
• Worse:                             56%
• DK / Refusal:                   4%

In your opinion, in 10 years will the situation of French in Quebec will be;

• Better:                             8%
• The same:                     29%
• Worse:                          56%
• DK / Refusal:                7%

Do you feel concerned about the use of French in public space?

• Very concerned:        26%
• Fairly concerned:      36%
• Not very concerned: 21%
• Not at all concerned:  1%
• DK / Refusal:             2%

Who should act to protect French to act?

• It’s everyone’s business to protect French :
• Citizens 58%
• Government: 32%
• DK / Refusal: 10%

These questions almost descend to the level of a "Push Poll," one designed not to test opinion, but rather to shape it.

At any rate....

But here is where it gets interesting because the poll went on to asked respondents what they themselves were prepared to do to protect the French language.

What is interesting about the poll is not that the majority feel that French is in peril, but rather how little those who were asked actually cared.

What gesture (s) or action (s) would you be ready to take to ensure better protection and promotion of French?

• Boycott a company or business that does not respect the French language:      37%
• Vote for a political party that makes the French language one of its priorities: 37%
• Sign a petition asking for better protection of the French language: 31%
• Report a situation to the Office québécois de la langue française: 28%
• Denounce, on social media, a situation where the French language is not respected: 22%
• Participate in a demonstration  demanding better protection of the French language:  9% 
• None of these gestures /actions:  30%

So while 58% of respondents tell pollsters that it is the responsibility of citizens to protect the French language, only 9% would participate in a demonstration and only 22% would report a lack of respect for French on their social media., a big difference in what they say they should do and what they would actually do.
And please note that even the small number who say that they'll take action is over-stated. 
In actuality, it's easy to say that you'll take action, but few will.
What's more telling is how many are unabashedly admitting that they won't lift a finger.

Ha!Ha! ...  Good luck protecting your language!! 


Dear readers.
I hope you enjoyed a Merry Christmas and a Happy Channukka and please accept my best wishes for the New Year!

See ya next decade!

Habs Would Rather Lose in French Than Win in English

The Montreal Canadiens' current losing streak is all the more painful to endure because of the unbelievably muted response of the French sports media who have remained particularly silent about the Habs buffoon management, biting their collective tongues solely because of language.

It is unbelievable that in a city that eats and breathes hockey, the dismal Canadiens and their years-long descent into mediocrity has gone uncriticized, with nobody in the French media willing to say out loud what they know in their heart, which is that the Canadiens management from the top-down cares less about winning and more about the business, both ends which don't mesh well in a market where language dominates everything.
Compare the kid-glove treatment the Habs owners, management and coaches enjoy despite wallowing in utter mediocrity to that of the Maple Leafs who were quick to unload the overpaid and ineffective coach at the behest of a furious fan base and an outraged media.

The Canadiens, their fans, ownership and the media are content to let the current situation fester because changes mean upsetting the idea that the team is being capably run by francophone management.
No other organization in the NHL would allow such buffoons to remain in place.

Bergevin/Molson Most incompetent management team in the NHL

The Canadiens' pitiful performance is a neat metaphor for the mediocrity that pervades Quebec society, where language is more important than success. While it is hard to see the economic price Quebec has paid over its language obsession, the brutish cost is there nonetheless.

While Quebec was once a powerhouse province, second only to Ontario, the language obsession has over the last forty years reduced Quebec to beggar status, dependant on handouts from the hated Anglo provinces.

With the Canadiens, it is easier to see that decisions made because of language rather than hockey is costing the team its competitiveness.
Let us remember the vociferous outrage by the French media in December 2012 when  the Canadiens fired francophone coach Jacques Martin and replaced him with a non-French-speaking anglo, Randy Cunneyworth.

“Although our main priority remains to win hockey games and to keep improving as a team,” Molson’s statement read, “it is obvious that the ability for the head coach to express himself in both French and English will be a very important factor in the selection of the permanent head coach… We would like to thank all our fans for their understanding.”

You'd think the Habs hired Adolph Hitler to run the team, given the foaming outrage of the media and fans. In all of that fiasco not one word about hockey, it was language, language and language.

And so the Habs fans get what they deserve, a mediocre team run in French.

Don't get me wrong, there are many fantastically talented francophone Quebecers running businesses, both in Quebec and abroad, success stories that go way beyond language.

Let me ask you this gentle reader.
If a family member was faced with a life-saving needed surgery and the choice for surgeon was between a superbly talented unilingual francophone doctor who was one of the most experienced and capable in the field, would you opt for a less qualified anglophone doctor, one who just got out of his residency, because you can communicate with him better?
Only an idiot would choose the latter, which is exactly what we do here in Quebec.


The real culprit in all this is mediocre and dim-witted managing owner of the Habs, the eminently under-qualified Geoff Molson, a man whom his own family recognized for his lack of talent. Instead of rocketing to the boardroom of Molson via nepotism, Geoff was shuffled off as a brand ambassador, visiting bars and restaurants talking up the company, a job usually reserved for ex-hockey players like the perfectly suitable Yvan Lambert, an ex-Hab with a sharp wit and a hollow leg.

Suffice to say that Geoff is the Prince Andrew of the Molson family.

Habs GM Marc Bergevin has bounced from one embarrassing fiasco to another.
It seems that everybody in the league knows this, everybody except Geoff Molson.
Or perhaps Geoff does know and is too timid to act. Either that or the search is on for a qualified francophone to fill the job, reducing the field of potential candidates by over 90%.

In Quebec language is everything.
It is more important than winning.
It is more important than success.

This is the Montreal Canadiens today, a shell of the once-successful dynasty, now a laughingstock.

How long will it take for this charade to play out?
It might be sooner than you think because fans like myself are no longer willing to shell out hundreds of dollars to watch a mediocre team owned and operated not to win, but rather to satisfy the language gods.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Climate Change

Walking my dog through the park on a marvellous 20 degree plus October day, I came across beautiful and colourful butterflies fluttering along.

Climate Fraudsters

Marvellous!
Those abounding insects in late Autumn testify that the climate is getting warmer and a good thing that it is.
I have seen and accept evidence that the Earth is in a warming phase, but pay no heed because the Earth is always warming or cooling. If mankind has sped up the process a bit, by virtue mostly of the vast population explosion, so be it.

The media and the climate doom saying scientists have been recklessly predicting catastrophe for the last thirty years and continue to churn out doomsday forecasts of our imminent demise without shame, predictions that happily never actually materialize.
When faced with the reality of those failed predictions, they push the date a little further on down the line, stringing us along the climate change charade, taking us for a ride like a donkey chasing a carrot held on a stick in front of its head by its rider, never to be actually reached.

You'd think we'd be smarter than that dumb ass, but alas as a society we are not, lapping up the nonsense that we are on the road to climate ruin, which like the Jewish Messiah is forever coming, but never actually arrives.
Alas, the messianic obsession with the end of the world predictions is utterly painful to watch for those of us, not of the faith and otherwise unconvinced.

More in sorrow than in anger I watch with incredulity the rapturous climate-disaster adherents pay reverential homage and piety to the latest Joan of Arc of the climate change movement, the 16-year-old Greta Thunberg who like the apparition of Our Lady of Fatima has risen to guide us all to the path to redemption.
It would be comical if not so sad.

Every time some brave unbeliever disputes the coming climate disaster, he or she is attacked as an utter fool or apostate, all with the fervour of a Muslim extremist explaining with absolute certainty the reality of those 72 virgins awaiting him in Heaven.
It's hard to argue with that kind of religious zealotry and thus equally as hard to argue with climate change fanatics. To them, there can be no discussion because after all, as God to some, there can be no other valid reality.
And as the jihadist explains, who can actually say that there aren't 72 virgins in Heaven awaiting the pious.

I don't worry about climate change, in the same way that I don't worry about crashing when boarding an airplane.
The situation is out of my hands, just as climate change is.

All the alarming rhetoric and hysterical entreaties haven't made a difference in our so-called carbon footprint. Climate change fanatics have generally done no more (other than talk) to change their habits and seem to adhere to a policy that something has to be done to avert global warming, but that something should be done by someone else and paid for by others.

Climate evangelists like Al Gore, David Suzuki and even Prince Harry live privileged lives in huge mansions and have carbon footprints that stagger the imagination. They flit around the world in jets (sometimes private jets) to preach about the evils of global warming and the coming doom to fanatics. Cleverly they claim they 'offset' their own huge carbon footprint by buying so-called 'carbon credits,' which is a clever way out of a sticky wicket. Buying a carbon offset is easily explained as paying someone else to do the prison time for the crime you committed.

A week after meeting Greta, Arnold is seen tooling around in this gas-guzzler.

Celebrities like Arnold Schwarzenegger, with a staggering carbon footprint, preach to us about climate change.
It is sickening.
Read about this fraudster


So in the climate change world, rich people don't have to moderate their behaviour, just the hoi-polloi.
It is the weakness and contradictions of the movement that leave me out of the global-warming disaster camp because, for one, all the hysterical disaster predictions over the thirty years have proven false.
You know the old saying....

Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice shame on me!

A cold analysis of our human condition can only conclude that even if the impending climate disaster is real, we can do nothing about it because mankind is incapable of making meaningful change.
The significant changes that would be required should all these predictions be true are out of our reach because humans, individually and collectively have proven that they are selfish, short-sighted and unwilling to undertake the harder path for long-term gain.

It just isn't in us.

The great popularity of Greta Thunberg is in the blame she heaps on the older generations who she blasts for climate change,
This theme is wildly popular with the young because it demands that another generation fix the problem, something which is never going to happen.
Her popularity would crumble if she proposed that her generation take charge and make the sacrifices necessary.
Imagine if Greta proposed that young people stop eating meat, consume less manufactured products and buy less clothing in the name of wasteful fashion. She should tell them that they must curtail flying and car ownership. They must undertake not to use disposable diapers and sanitary products and commit to living in smaller quarters, closer to their jobs. She'd have them commit to changing their electronic equipment like phones and computers less often, perhaps every ten years.  Commit to pay three or four times the price for energy, be it gasoline, natural gas or electricity. Eliminate backyard barbeques, fireplaces and campfires.
Vending machines that distribute water, pop and juices in plastic bottles would have to be eliminated and everyone would walk around with their own reusable utensils and plates for restaurants now using plastic and single-use takeout food containers would be banned.
Universities and colleges could ban tail-gate parties at football and other entertainment events as wasteful carbon emitters.
Sports teams would be restricted to train travel and international sporting events would be seriously curtailed.
Foreign tourism would be perhaps reduced to one personal trip every five years.
Most importantly each individual could be given a carbon ration card where the personal limit could not be exceeded and where the rich would not be allowed to buy carbon credits from others.
Every year, as we do today at tax time, everyone would have to declare their carbon footprint and those over the limit would face harsh punishment.
And most importantly every single young woman on Earth would need to commit to bear no more than two children. After all, population is the driving force in the overuse of resources.
Young people in third-world countries would be asked that their society not be allowed to catch up to the west in industrialization.

Does that sound like a viable plan that this Greta generation will willingly adopt?

I somehow doubt that this will happen, because truth be told, the Greta generation is even less altruistic than my generation, or my father's.

As I said before, we have as much chance reducing global warming as we do in ending war in this world.
All the good intentions will not bring about any significant result.

But while climate messiahs describe the horrors of global warming, nobody describes the benefits, which if the old saying that its an ill wind that blows no good is to be believed, must exist somewhere..

We are told warming weather will bring more hurricanes and unsettled weather, an unsubstantiated scare tactic.
We are told that climate warming will lead to animal extinctions when the opposite is true. For every species like polar bears that disappear the warm weather will encourage and nurture many more new life forms.
We are told that hot weather will lead to many worldwide deaths when the reality it is that cold weather today kills five times as many people as warm weather.
We are told that rising sea levels will drown coastal areas which if true is easily controlled by dykes, berms and sand walls. Trust me Miami Beach will not disappear into the ocean, ask the Dutch.

Warmer temperatures are better for humanity than cold, a fact the climate fanatics fail to accept.

Evidence of this is in comparing the mini ice age of the Dark Age to the Renaissance period which enjoyed a hotter climate.
Warmer temperatures mean less burning of fossil fuels to heat homes.

And finally, the loss of equatorial habitat due to an unacceptable rise in temperature is more than offset by the opening up of vast newly liberated territories in northern Canada and Russia.

Yes, Canada will be an infinitely richer country as a result of global warming!

While the Greta generation suffers from climate change derangement syndrome, they'd be better off worrying about things they can control.

Climate is not one of them.

CAQ Continues Quebec Tradition of Anglo Ethnic Cleansing

Bill 101, the French language law was enacted in 1977 by a separatist government as an important first step in the march towards Quebec independence. The father of the law, Dr. Camille Laurin was a rabid anglophobe who planned the law less as a protection for the French language and more as an effort to remove anglophones and their influence from Quebec society, a necessary prerequisite to convincing Quebecers to split from Canada.

Bill 101 has successfully been sold to francophones as a necessary defensive mechanism needed to protect their language and culture from the onslaught of the English and remains massively popular.
Dr. Laurin shrewdly added clauses to the law that were overtly contrary to Canada's founding constitution, the BNA act. The inevitable challenges in the Supreme court and the subsequent defeats were anticipated and designed to bolster francophone resentment of Canada thus fostering a climate of confrontation that would serve separatists in their battle to convince Quebecers that Canada was an impediment to a flourishing Quebec society.

Evil father of Bill 101, hateful Anglophobe Camille Laurin

In this respect Dr. Laurin's plan was diabolically clever and effective, he correctly surmised that the anglos represented a formidable and solid voting block that would stand in the way of a successful referendum. Reducing their numbers was the primary goal of Bill 101, not the protection of the French language..

The law was actually based and sold on two very wrong premises, the first that Quebec was becoming more and more English and secondly that it was the English and ethnic communities who were responsible for the perceived, yet false reality that English was on the upswing and threatening to steamroll the French nature of Quebec.

Let us consider that today's issue of massive immigration to Quebec by those speaking neither English or French wasn't an issue back when Bill 101 was conceived and where only about 20,000 immigrants per year were accepted compared to 50,000 today. Back then Quebec also produced more babies and was growing at a rate of 50,000 people (births minus deaths) locally compared to zero or negative growth today.
Bill 101 was a law conceived to battle a problem that didn't exist.

At any rate,  restrictions were placed on the English language and the English community to the wild rejoicing of nationalists, while the general francophone population accepted the law as a necessary evil employed to forestall Quebec's demise as a French nation.
It wasn't actually that hard to convince the general francophone population that someone else's rights had to be trampled in order to protect theirs.
It's the same scenario employed around the world by ethnic-cleansing governments who first blame the ills of society on certain definable minorities and then place restrictions on those communities to placate and distract the masses.
While some of the tactics employed to rid nations of these pesky threats rise to genocide, other less obvious tactics are employed to disempower or drive out minorities deemed unwanted though restrictive laws that render these minorities, second-class citizens

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial and/or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, often with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous. Wikipedia

Every single Quebec government since Bill 101 has enacted or enforced laws that promoted the destruction of the English minority, laws that renders the community so uncomfortable that an exodus to friendlier environs is preferable for many of the young and mobile.
What Anglo Quebec family doesn't count members who have emigrated to greener pastures in other parts of Canada or the USA?
How many times have you heard nationalist leaders tell us that if we don't like Bill 101, we should consider taking Highway 401, the road to Ontario.
Those my friends are the voices of ethnic cleansers who may blanch at being labelled as such, but who fit the bill.

Succeeding Quebec governments, whether separatists or federalists have always professed love for the anglo community but through their action or inaction in the face of Bill 101, have all worked to weaken, undermine,  dislodge and ultimately render the Anglo community numerically impoverished and politically irrelevant.

`The premier (Legault) was asked to define just who is a "historical anglophone," after Immigration Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette, who is also responsible for the protection of the French language, said a new language policy will ensure all ministries and organizations offer public services almost exclusively in French.

The policy should be ready in the coming weeks, Jolin-Barrette said, and will apply to communication with individuals as well as companies.

Nothing will change for the "historic English minority," he explained — they "will always be able to receive all the services in their own language."

"Historic Anglo Minority."

Whenever you hear that phrase, understand that is code, and you are listening or reading an opinion  provided by an ethnic cleanser.

Referring to the historic Anglo minority implies that it is a closed shop, amd nobody can join this community by choice and that immigrants who come to Quebec and their descendants will never be allowed to become Anglophones.

And therein lies the rub.

Consider that both native-born francophone and anglophone numbers are dwindling because of the falling birth rate which can no longer support a stable population.
For anglophones, this problem is infinitely more acute because of emigration by young Anglos fed-up with life in Quebec as well as inter-marriage between francophones and anglophones where two out of three blended families choose to educate their children in French.

While francophones can hope to bolster and restore their numbers through immigration and the forced adaptation of French as their language and culture, Anglophones are by law forbidden to assimilate new immigrants.

By refusing to allow a certain percentage of immigrants to enter the English primary school system, the law assures the gradual destruction of the English community in Quebec.

It is that plain and simple and we have already seen the results over the last thirty years, that is an Anglophone community reduced by half.

Beneath the surface of feigned respect and appreciation of the English in Quebec lies a starker and more sinister picture of francophone Quebec, a society obsessed with its purity, detesting the English and fearful of the necessary evil of impure immigrants who water down pur laine Quebec culture, even if they speak French.

Petty and vindictive, as highlighted by the Bonjour/Hi fiasco, 'pastagate' and more recently, the ruling by bureaucrats that a native French citizen of France did not possess the right stuff for immigration because a tiny portion of her dissertation was written in English (so that it could be published) highlights the underlying official enmity towards the English that is manifest and undeniable.
These are not isolated instances of pettiness but mark the underlying hateful attitude that Quebec governments and bureaucracy holds for the impure.

Such is the rhetoric of Francois Legault and his xenophobic minions, including the French media who heap scorn and disdain upon those not of the tribe.
Make no mistake, the organized assault on the English community is a plan launched by Dr. Laurin and followed and enforced up by every single subsequent Quebec government.

So don't single out Francois Legault and the CAQ for the hateful attitude towards Anglos and Ethnics, he and his party are just continuing the fine tradition of bashing minorities, the only difference being his unabashed zeal and shameful enjoyment of the endeavour.

Would Dr. Camille Laurin be alive today, he would be disappointed that Quebec has failed to gain independence but he'd be overjoyed at the humiliation his law has unleashed on the hated English and the decimation of the community his law has wrought.