Understanding Islam, page 12
In the eyes of the false proponents of secularity currently in power, both Islam and its mosques have become untouchable objects worthy of veneration. In this regard, Le Monde, the prevailing ideology’s official journal, published the words of a certain Thomas Deltombe who, in an inimitable style permeated by political cant and Newspeak, recently explained that anything ‘Islamophobic’ was actually a racist abomination, a form of concealed racism. Even poor Caroline Fourest, an ‘anti-racist’ and feministic bourgeois-bohemian aligned with the Left like none other but suspected of being too secular, was included in what he defined as Islamophobic (and therefore racist). Any criticism of Islam is a sinful act, which allows the concept of a ‘desecration act against Islam’ to be introduced. This represents an extraordinary psycho-ideological reversal that brings delight into the hearts of those who have masterminded the Islamisation of France.
As far as this intellectual is concerned, anything that opposes Islam either marginally or in a straightforward manner is racist and fascist. Such delirium would not attract any interest if it was not relayed by the hegemonic media. The semantical reversal operated by Deltombe (consistent with the classic Leninist technique of disinformation), which claims that we live in an Islamophobic society, even if it actually is Islamophilic, is part of the intellectual bewilderment that embodies the hallmark of totalitarian or, to be more precise, pre-totalitarian thought. Mr. Deltombe and Le Monde are the indirect heirs of the regimes that once distorted people’s sense of reality19 .
Faced with the radicalisation of Islam, particularly among young people of immigrant descent, the self-righteous intellectuals of the political Left indulge in the culture of excuses and denial. In an interview with Patrick Weil conducted by Le Monde journalist Nicolas Truong (The Meaning of the Republic, Grasset, 2015), we find out that Islam is innocent of all those terrorist attacks and that those who murder others in the name of Allah and the Koran are unaware of what they are doing, killing only due to their own personal frustration and despair: ‘The perpetrators of such terrorist attacks should be set apart’ because ‘they are radical losers whose primary motivations have nothing to do with their religion, which only serves as a catalyst for their stress and latent frustration’. In other words, it is all our fault: it is because we proceed to exclude, disadvantage and despise Muslims that Islamist terrorists choose to commit such acts. In fact, it is the very opposite that is true: no jihadist candidate, no mujahid has suffered any exclusion or denigration, nor is he a pauper or a desperate man in a state of revolt. All of them are simply motivated by fanatical hatred and Salafist propaganda.
Commenting on the political cant that pervaded Weil’s words, which are a perfect representation of the incredible naivety that suffuses our journalistic-intellectual oligarchy, Eric Zemmour wrote: ‘We should just talk to each other and put together an army of psychoanalysts, psychiatrists and social workers to assist every Muslim delinquent and keep libraries open round the clock! This is what Patrick Weil claims in all seriousness. The good lads who shout “death to the Jews” and sometimes commit murder suffer from an insufficient amount of “respect, dialogue and understanding”. On the other hand, the deadly danger, meaning the purest anti-Semitic and racist hatred, continues to nestle in those bourgeois neighbourhoods where, as Weil tells us with overwhelming emotion, people still ponder the Maurassian message’. Zemmour concludes that ‘Weil is caught up in past battles and unconscious of the imminent war’. (Le Figaro, 02/07/2015).
Edwy Plenel is a cop-like leftist journalist and the former director of Le Monde. He also runs the Mediapart website and is the very prototype of a collaborator. Questioned by J-J. Bourdin on RMC on September the 15th 2014, he presented his book entitled For Muslims and gleefully stated:’ In today’s precarious world, France is immensely fortunate to be the foremost Muslim country in Europe’. Always the same Orwellian chorus: disasters turn into opportunities. Plenel is the caricatural symbol of the collaborating Left, but he ventures even further than others ever have: his words are declarations of love, as he lies either flat on his back or prostrate, offering his arse up.
For decades on end, the French intelligentsia and its contacts within the political and mediatic milieus maintained their support of communist totalitarianism, whether that of the Soviet Union and Stalinism, the one in Albania, Cuba and Maoist China, or even that of Pol Pot’s Cambodia and North Korea. Repentance came extremely late within the ranks of the bourgeois leftists, who were influenced by Trotskyism to some extent and now hold the reins of power. The same phenomenon has been occurring with regard to Islam: its totalitarianism fascinates the leftist perspective, a perspective with basically very little commitment to the notion of ‘freedom’. Such tropism is typical of the Left.
In the Shadow of Islam — ‘Free-Thinkers’ and Secular Leftists
At the end of 2014, three legal actions were filed against the displaying of nativity scenes in public places: one against the town hall of Melun, another against the General Council of Vendée, and a third against the town hall of Béziers. The Federation of Free Thought was behind all three of them. There are signs, however, that our justice system is losing ground and making erratic judgments: the Administrative Court of Nantes, unlike the other two (Melun and Béziers), ordered the removal of the nativity scene, despite its location at the heart of the old Catholic land of Vendée.
This is the very first time that the presence of nativity scenes in public places has been criticised (by Republican representatives, and not the Church!), all in the name of ‘secularism’. They had always been part of the environment without anyone ever taking offence, which goes for all self-declared secularists and anticlerical greybeards too. And suddenly they’ve awakened. Well, well, why do you think that is?
In reality, these attacks conducted upon nativity scenes do not fall under of some ‘secular counter-offensive’ against a Catholic Church that has been rendered speechless, but are part of an offensive against the ethno-cultural identity of France. It is absolutely not a question of defending secularism, but an intolerant aggression against indigenous traditions. ‘Secularism’ is subject to perverse exploitation. This attack is part of a coordinated plan that Islamic immigration makes the most of and that strives, in a most cunning fashion, to undermine and destroy (or ‘deconstruct’) the culture and memory of the native French population. The inspiration comes from an ideologically compatible blend of Marxism and Islamism, with the former standing at the forefront and the latter waiting in ambush.
According to an IFOP (French Institute of Public Opinion) poll organised in Western France, 71% of the French are in favour of having nativity scenes displayed in public places, since they are seen as an element of cultural tradition and are not considered to be part of Catholic clericalism. By targeting nativity scenes, one thus attacks one of the tree’s roots. Some of the media resort to shameless lies when claiming that those freethinkers’ anti-nativity reaction is a response to the ‘offensive’ placement of such crèches in public buildings. However, it is quite the opposite: the number of nativity scenes displayed there nowadays is not higher than in the past. It is rather lower, in fact. Such an attitude is therefore not a reaction to the provocative placement of crèches in public areas, but an actual plan to ban them, an endeavour that has a very specific ideological agenda revolving around the following watchword, a watchword shared by the masochistic oligarchy: the organisation of attacks upon any Identitarian element or aspect rooted in French and European tradition. These nativity scenes are an ideal target, since they are a deep-rooted symbol dating back to the Middle Ages and therefore considered dangerous.
In addition to this, the presence of those crèches is in violation of the ‘gender theory’ (i.e. the abolition of gender differences and natural law), because it displays a ‘family’ (a father, mother, and a newborn child), which is not politically correct enough for the dominant leftist ideology. Furthermore, the very image of the Virgin Mary, a central character in nativity scenes and the focus of specific veneration (the Cult of the Virgin), is a femininity model despised by the above-mentioned ideology.
It must be understood that when, by order of the government, the police repressed and underestimated the huge ‘Manif pour tous’ (Manifestation for All) movements (which brought together 1.7 million demonstrators), their actions were not motivated by a desire to defend ‘gay marriage’. It was meant to be a confrontation, an intimidating attack upon a deep-rooted France that is culturally Catholic and family-oriented, a France that embodies the oligarchy’s nemesis and its absolute enemy. The hatred towards Catholic symbolism — including crèches and family tradition — is not evidence of secularism at all, but serves as a warning that threatens our profound French identity.
In this highly suspicious matter, something obsolete and completely forgotten, a fossil, has been brought back to life: the Federation of Free Thought (which only comprises 4,000 members), an anti-clerical sect founded during the late 19th century. This cult has now been revived, however, and is being manipulated to file complaints against nativity scenes. Lurking behind, one obviously finds the Grand Orient de France (TN: a large Masonic organisation) and the Human Rights League, which walk hand in hand with the Socialist Party’s bourgeois-bohemian and leftist think-tank, the Terra Nova, whose main strategy is not at all focused on human rights but, instead, on the dissolution of the French identity. In the process, free-thinkers (and the rest of them too) are nothing but collaborators, objective allies, and useful idiots. Anything that can harm the European tradition is worth capitalising on. Hence this question: do they, knowingly or unwittingly, serve the interests of Islamisation?
The answer is yes. Malek Boutih, the Socialist Party’s Essonne deputy who shares some of our Muslim compatriots’ belief in interreligious coexistence, gave the following reply when questioned by Le Parisien, a daily that had been playing down the attacks against nativity scenes: ‘When I was a child, there were crèches all over the place. It was a celebration, not an act of aggression against my parents’ religion’. True enough, but, at the time, Muslim immigrants were but a minority. The situation has now changed entirely, as have the attitudes. Behind these complaints against the display of nativity scenes in public places, one finds the following implicit argument: these crèches offend those who are not Christian, particularly the Muslims. And it is the collaborators that have made use of this argument, not the Muslims themselves!
Could there be a certain form of anti-clerical secularism that acts as our Islamic conquerors’ secret accomplice? Actually, it is worse than that: they venture beyond Muslim demands, since the Muslims have never (yet) dared protest against crèches or Christian processions20 . Although previously nonexistent, this intense antagonism surrounding the symbol of the nativity is indicative of the ‘communitarianisation’ of France, a country that is experiencing the onset of a cultural clash. Islam is obviously the unspoken aspect, the core, the black hole of this whole controversy. What is worth noting here is that, due to the growing presence of Islam, the ‘secular’ attitude towards Christian identity markers has taken on an even more uncompromising dimension. They would never pluck up the courage to attack Islam, so they vent their frustrations by attacking Christianity in a pathological reflex of enemy reversal. This is the case of all those Femen provocations, which go systematically unpunished. One of their members has desecrated the crèche at St. Peter’s Square in Rome, without ever having to answer for it21 .
Christophe Borgel, the Socialist Party’s national secretary and a Haute Garonne Member of Parliament, seems to have grasped the ongoing issues. Commenting on the complaints that were filed against crèches, he has stated: ‘Such behaviour is stupid at best. At worst, it’s downright criminal. [...] The real problem today is our cultural confrontation with Islam. All one has to do is look at what is happening in Germany in terms of rejection22 . Nothing is more dimwitted than giving grist to the extreme-Right’s mill by prohibiting nativity scenes!’ He is aware of the problem, but to him, it is the ‘extreme Right’, i.e. the National Front, that represents the actual danger. His reaction is purely that of a politician who wants to keep his share of the pie. Do not to offend Islam! Do not embrace extremes!
With regard to the crèche affair, it should be noted that the Catholic Church bears no responsibility whatsoever. As if terror-stricken, it simply keeps a low profile. The Catholic Church is not the one that demands the presence of nativity scene in public areas. Moreover, Catholics, Protestants and Jews have never necessitated a more prominent role in such spaces. Only Islam does so, by issuing ever more pressing demands in accordance with its own logic of intimidation.
The mental mechanism of this behaviour is one of submission, collaboration and electoral calculation. How does it all work then? Faced with the growth of immigration and Islam, a growth which it actually promotes, the leftist oligarchy has chosen to pledge itself to the phenomenon by attacking the indigenous traditions of the ‘former France’, driven by a mixture of fear and calculation. Despite the countless contradictions between Islam and European (or ‘Republican’) traditions, the oligarchy plays it by ear: to please the supposed future victors, it denigrates the traditions of its own people.
In a display of utter cowardice, ‘free-thought’ sectarians have never lifted a finger in defence of the girls that have been forced to wear the veil, nor have they taken a stand against arranged marriages, polygamy, the Islamisation of the suburbs, the establishment of prayer rooms in companies, compulsory halal meals, etc. They have particularly made sure that they never brave those municipalities that spend public funds on organising banquets to celebrate Ramadan fast-breaking: such behaviour is not considered an attack on secularism, why would it!
The latest waves of criticism already target the ringing of church bells, always in the name of a perverted vision of ‘secularism’, as well as the shrines in the countryside, whose maintenance costs are beginning to be challenged. And in the near future, the very few Catholic processions, including the traditionalist march from Chartres to Paris, are bound to be next in line. In 2014, the Socialist government actually attempted, for the first time, to obstruct the path of the procession.
(People’s) Catholicism is primarily targeted because it is interpreted as a sociological marker of our indigenous identity. This was blatantly visible during the repression and deprecation of the ‘Manifestation for All’. Largely infected or paralysed by the dominant ideology, the prelates of the Church keep a low profile, without uttering a word of protest. Churches are growing empty, as the mosques fill up and increase in number, financed by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Morocco. 5,000 churches in France are threatened with ruination and lack of maintenance, even in Paris itself. In France, the Catholic Church’s budget does not exceed that of the city of Bordeaux and is certainly lower than that of Islam, which remains particularly opaque and is funded not through gold, but petrodollars.
The State’s Favouritism
The authorities grant Islam and Muslims incredible favours and privileges while denying the indigenous population the same rights. These include financial aid for the construction of mosques, special menus, the establishment of prayer rooms in companies and the arrangement of different working hours, the Belkacem pro-Islamic reform of our educational system, leniency or impunity for Muslim criminals (which applies to anti-French and anti-Semitic websites as well), special schedules for women’s use of swimming pools, organising receptions in various municipalities to celebrate Ramadan, favouritism, subsidies and privileges for Muslim institutions, associations and authorities, the practice of positive discrimination in the employment sphere and that of social housing (in the name of ‘diversity’), tolerance and support for the opening of Muslim colleges and religious schools where radical Islam is freely advocated, etc.
Examples of the submission of European elites to the Islamic invaders abound, symbolising a frightening kind of cowardice: Real Madrid removed the cross from its logo so as not to shock its sponsor, the National Bank of Abu Dhabi. Will one abolish the traditional Corsican banner showing a decapitated Moor’s head (in memory of the atrocities committed by Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean, who were then beaten back by the Corsicans)? Such polished submission is noticeable in our politicians’ declarations. Laurent Fabius has said that ‘Daesh has nothing to do with Islam, which is a religion of peace.’ A religion of peace, really? Has he read the Koran? And Manuel Valls once stated the following: ‘The Islamic State does not represent Islam.’ It is like saying: ‘Hitler does not represent National Socialism’, or ‘Stalinism bears no connection to Communism’. Such a denial of reality at the hands of those collaborators is mind-blowing.
‘Positive discrimination’, based on ethno-religious criteria and at odds with the republican concept of individual equality, has long been practiced, but has picked up pace since the Socialist Party took power, a fact that the brilliant Natacha Polony seems unable to grasp. In her article entitled What if France finally addressed the children of immigrants? (Le Figaro, 22/02/2014), she surrenders to the naive illusion of possible integration. She attributes the failure of ‘integration’ to the fact that politicians do not speak to the children of immigrants sufficiently and neglect them: ‘All the young people of Maghrebian or Sub-Saharan origin, who define themselves increasingly as Muslims [...], are under the impression that France is a bad mother to them’. These young people are said to harbour the sentiment ‘that they are not always considered fully French’. She deplores ‘the total absence of action — and of discourse, even — towards such populations’. Although Right-oriented, she criticises ‘the frustrations and real problems regarding discrimination in the employment or housing sphere’, harping on things in the leftist intelligentsia’s typical vulgate. She demands a ‘specific policy against genuine cases of discrimination’ and ‘massive investments’, i.e. the famous ‘Marshall Plan for the suburbs’. She concludes, in a completely romantic and hollow surge of ideas, that what we need is ‘to find verbal inspiration, one that gives hope and unites people under a common vision’.
