Understanding Islam, page 13
But what planet does Natacha Polony live on, exactly? Why does she resort to an inversion of reality? Dearest Natacha, it has all been done before, a thousand times over. Astronomical sums have been invested into the suburbs, but all in vain. What the ideology of ‘diversity’ generates is positive discrimination in all areas, both in terms of hiring and in matters of social benefits, at the expense of ‘native’ citizens and comprising, administratively speaking, ‘contest-free (and therefore unconstitutional) recruitments’ meant exclusively for applicants of immigrant origin, in addition to the inclusion of compulsory quotas of ethnic preference in company employment23 . Far from being neglected, the ‘children of immigrants’ are privileged. Yet it all avails to nothing.
Things have gone so far that Malika Sorel-Sutter, former member of the High Council for Integration, stated without a trace of hesitation: ‘What the government labels “republican equality” is nothing short of positive discrimination, which is defined as the offering of bonuses or privileges in accordance with one’s ethno-racial background. The government intends to support all administrations in obtaining their Diversity label. This will necessarily result in the eviction of the native European French population, who will find itself excluded for not being of the right origin. We are distancing ourselves from the very concept of citizenship for which the French once took up arms and went as far as to conduct the Revolution’ (in Valeurs actuelles, 20–26/02/2014). This courageous and lucid woman was referring to the Lebanonisation of France.
The Government’s Blindness to Islam
In order to conceal the failure of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (Conseil Français du culte Musulman or CFCM), the government has decided to create a new structure, a ‘dialogue platform’ with Islam. At regular intervals, one hundred and fifty Muslim personalities will engage in a debate with the State on various sensitive issues, the training of imams, the funding of mosques, etc. Are these intentions to be taken seriously?
The first of a series of meetings was held at the Interior Ministry’s headquarters on June the 15th 2015 and confirmed the fact that the government was still blinded and in denial of reality. Rather than addressing the primary issues surrounding the opacity of the financing of mosques, the training of 2000 imams mostly of Algerian, Moroccan and Turkish origin (whose sermons are often radical), the disturbing questions regarding the ever more frequent entryism of Salafists into mosques, the increasing roughness of young Muslim immigrants fascinated by the Islamic State (Daesh) and willing to carry out jihad in France itself, and even the proliferation of terrorist attacks and assassinations committed in the name of Islam, the Ministry lacked the courage to tackle such sensitive topics. Instead, they chose to rehash the usual mantra of combating some imaginary ‘Islamophobia’.
The initial and primary round table focused on ‘the security of places of worship, the fight against anti-Muslim acts and the image of Islam’. Because everyone knows that it is Islam which is being threatened and attacked in France and is not the one that actually aggresses others. Lying through their teeth, the members of the Interior Ministry stated: ‘As many anti-Muslim acts have been recorded on the French territory during the month of January 2015 as throughout the whole of 2014’. In fact, ever since the traumatic Islamic murders of January 2015 (17 fatal casualties), which echoed those of Brussels, the focus has always been on ‘Islamophobic’ tags and inscriptions, never on actual attacks nor violent criminal acts.
Exhibiting complete submission to its Muslim counterparts and placing itself in a position of capitulation, the Interior Ministry lacks the necessary courage to mention the eruption of anti-Semitic and anti-Christian attacks, which are truly ultraviolent and whose perpetrators are young Muslim fanatics. Never mentioning the acts of aggression that are committed against Jews and that drive the latter to emigrate, move out of predominantly Muslim areas, and withdraw their children from public schools, the Interior Ministry’s senior officials are careful not to reveal the impressive increase in the amount of desecration and vandalism upon Catholic churches and cemeteries, despite having fully identified the perpetrators, with the added bonus of a terrorist attempt to commit a massacre inside a church in Villejuif in May 2015. This attempt was conducted by an Algerian murderer tied to international jihad and foiled at the very last moment. The man also meant to target the Basilica of Montmartre.
In this ‘dialogue platform’ with Islam, not a single word has been said concerning the Muslim authorities’ mild and rare reactions to Islamic violence, nor about their disturbing (either tacit or express) approval of the jihadist attacks carried out by a growing proportion of young Muslim immigrants. As always, the aggressor is portrayed as a victim.
At a time when the very expensive ‘Vigipirate’ and ‘Sentinel’ projects aim to protect various media headquarters, numerous tourist and administrative sites, churches, synagogues, and kosher shops, a decision has been made to offer a public subsidy of up to 80% of the total cost to ensure the safety of mosques, particularly through video surveillance. But who the hell is threatening mosques anyway? It is in the name of Islam that attacks are being conducted, but Islam that must be protected. What we have here is a desire to vindicate.
In a show of impudence, Muslim authorities have filed complaints with the French government because of a deterioration in ‘Islam’s public image’ in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks that afflicted France and the violent acts perpetrated by Daesh in the Middle East and Libya and, in Africa, by its emulators. Hypocritically, they deplore the ‘stigmatisation’ that Islam is allegedly being subjected to and the ‘amalgamation’ (another one of their fetish words) between the terrorism committed in the name of Islam and the Muslims themselves. Bizarre, is it not? Imagine that Christians, Jews or Buddhists were to wage bloody attacks against Muslims or any other group ‘in the name of’ of their religion’: would we not be entitled to ask certain questions?
Commenting on the results of this ‘platform of dialogue with the Muslim faith’, Jean-Marie Guénois suggests that it is all but a ‘windmill’ meant to cover up a certain ‘electioneering approach’ on the part of French Muslims (Le Figaro, 06/15/2015). Here is what he says: ‘Indeed, why would none of them (i.e the participants) ever want to or dare question [...] the rise of Salafist radicalism among some young French Muslims? “Off topic”, they say. But didn’t this tragedy (the attacks of January 2015) trigger the current development? “Let us avoid stigmatising Islam”, they add. [...] How can the foremost country of human rights remain silent about an extremist religious idea that programmes French youths to kill other people on a daily basis?’ The answer is a mixture of electoral calculation, cowardice and an ideological denial of reality.
On the occasion of the first meeting held by the ‘dialogue platform’ with Islam, Manuel Valls declared: ‘There is a major challenge for us to face in the coming years: that of demonstrating that Islam is fully compatible with democracy, the Republic, and the notion of equality between men and women’. I guess he must have somehow forgotten to open the Koran, just like Juppé and Jacques Lang. This is the so-called Coué method, i.e. a complete denial of reality. One might as well claim that Marxist Communism is entirely compatible with free enterprise, Christianity with atheism, Judaism with anti-Semitism, Nazism with the Jews and cats with mice.
Statal Francophobia — a ‘Population Policy’
In response to the Islamic massacre that took place in January 2015, the powers-that-be have, beyond the introduction of ineffective security measures, expressed the intention to ultimately impose, under the pretext of ‘social diversity’, a more pronounced form of immigration and Islamisation, through the implementation of a ‘population policy’. Instead of healing the wounds, this will add fuel to the fire and exacerbate the damage. As if the ‘ghettos’ were to be blamed for those Islamic attacks. Any policy of ‘integration’ or ‘assimilation’ is impossible given the scale of immigration and one must therefore resort to forceful measures so as to organise the territorial dissemination of immigrant populations (in housing and schools), 90% of whom are Muslims. Could the government’s secret purpose lie in the destruction of the French European identity? It seems that anti-French racism has plenty of fuel reserves.
Following the Islamic terrorist murders that were carried out on the 7th, 8th and 9th of January 2015 (and which a certain number of young Muslim immigrants were in favour of), the authorities, in a classic pathological reflex, did not come to the conclusion that a war was being waged against France on its own soil and that it was therefore imperative for them to stop and reverse the flow of immigration and Islamisation, which act as breeding grounds for terrorists and guerrillas. Instead, they inferred that the French were guilty of ‘apartheid’ and that it was thus necessary to forcefully impose the presence of predominantly Muslim immigrant populations throughout the French territory.
It is as if the aim was to prevent the native French population from regrouping by, once again, imposing the presence of a population that they had previously attempted to flee and with which any cohabitation is impossible. As for those members of the ‘gauche caviar’ bourgeoisie [Translator’s note: the term ‘gauche caviar’ bears a highly pejorative connotation and refers to people who declare themselves to be socialists yet behave in a way that contradicts their professed values] who have devised the above-mentioned strategy, a strategy whose function is to impose the famous ‘diversity’, they enjoy a life of protection in city centres or luxury villages that keep their country houses sheltered, far from their beloved immigrants. Manuel Valls has proposed ‘a population policy to fight against ghettoisation and segregation’, an approach ‘not solely focused on housing and habitat’. What he meant was that he wanted to implement tougher school mapping by using force to intermix indigenous populations with Muslim immigrants and reinforcing the measures of ‘positive discrimination’, meaning favouritism, which lead to the exclusion of our native French population from numerous sectors and serve as a sort of ‘punishment’ for its members.
Our response to the Islamic aggression against France is thus for us to take measures against... ‘Islamophobia’! The fundamentalists must be rubbing their hands with delight and feeling very heartened. Our other reaction is to send a benighted army to wage war upon Mali and bomb the Islamic militias in Iraq, while simultaneously allowing unchecked Muslim immigration flows to pour into France, and to standardise judicial laxity and impunity for criminals and offenders under the aegis of Mrs Taubira, in an act of utter delirium. Stricken with insanity, the Republic no longer protects the nation, but undertakes to hack off the branch which supports its weight.
The term ‘population policy’ itself has some rather bizarre overtones, giving off a somewhat totalitarian vibe. Was it a case of lapsus linguae (TN: a slip of the tongue)? Could Manuel Valls have meant ‘repopulation’, i.e. ‘population replacement’? Or ‘colonisation’ at the hands of a new population, perhaps? For such words are not neutral by any means. In harmony with the laxity of our immigration policy (which allows illegal migrants to become non-removable and enjoy various subsidies, grants all asylum seekers the right to stay and brings about a constant rise in our regularisation and naturalisation rates), this process of population replacement is combined with an imperative of territorial distribution. All of this is consistent with Terra Nova ideas (the name itself is truly revealing, since a ‘new earth’ implies a ‘new population’), i.e. those of the Socialist Party’s think tank: their purpose is to de-Frenchify the population, found a ‘new (and ideally Islamised) France’, and, at the same time, bring in new immigrant voters, especially since the native electorate has abandoned the Left (in favour of the National Front) and is considered lost, ageing and in demographic decline. The strategy of disseminating the immigrant population (the ‘leopard skin’ tactic) devised by the Socialist Party and its Terra Nova subdivision perfectly suits the intentions of the Islamists that strive to besiege France. There is a subliminal Francophobia that can be glimpsed in Mr. Valls’ ideological formulation of a ‘population policy’. He seems to have expressed a desire to bring the native French people to an end, replacing it and repopulating the country by force; his attitude is a positive one since, by stating such things, he has actually shown his hand. Some will speak of an ethnocide, but I will not venture that far. In truth, Mr. Valls loves France: this is why he keeps strengthening the regularisation and naturalisation of illegal immigrants ...
This ‘population policy’ has a vaguely Stalinist aspect to it. As part of its main elements, it comprises the reinforcement of the SRU (Urban Solidarity and Renewal) law introduced by Lionel Jospin in 2000. HLM (TN: Habitation à loyer modéré or rent-controlled housing) quotas, primarily reserved for immigrants, will increase from 20% to 25% and involve higher financial penalties for all reluctant municipalities, quintupled by Cécile Duflot. Let us emphasise the Stalinist comments made by Francis Pupponi, the Socialist Party’s mayor of Sarcelles, a man who fully agrees with Valls regarding the latter’s observations on the topic of apartheid: ‘Talking about social and ethnic quotas will turn out to be a necessity if we really are to trigger change’. There, he said it loud and clear. He then went on to say: ‘It is also crucial for the State to regain control over local communities’.
Meanwhile, Patrick Kanner, the Minister of Urban Affairs, let slip the following gem: ‘The State must seize the land that is available in these neighbourhoods and establish the necessary territorial collectivities there’. Strange words, considering the fact that Kanner is in favour of ‘decentralisation’. When it comes to destroying the French people, it seems, one is quick to embrace Jacobinism again. However, one still gets to have fun redrawing the regions and playing ‘federalist’.
Laurent Chalard, geographer and member of the ‘European Centre for International Affairs’ think tank, believes that this forced ‘population’ policy, centred around the compulsory redistribution of populations, is bound to be ineffective: ‘Overall, social diversity policies have little effect because in today’s world, individuals seek to remain among their own and avoid mixing [...]. We must free ourselves of ideology. In multi-ethnic States, people have a tendency to assemble in accordance with their community of origin’ (Le Figaro, 24–25/01/2015). This is particularly visible in Marseille and in the case of the Asians that inhabit the 13th district of Paris. Are they to be ‘dispersed’ as well? Stalin once sought to redeploy and resettle the populations of the Soviet Union on the basis of a mandatory cartographic logic of deportation. French Socialists, who have neither forgotten their past nor their ideological training, abide by this very principle, albeit in a soft fashion. This is of course completely at odds with the democratic model of freedom. Since Robespierre, the Left has had major issues absorbing these two notions.
Strangely enough, it is often the elites of Maghrebian and Muslim immigrant descent who, without even a hint of bad conscience, exhibit the greatest degree of lucidity concerning the colonisation of France. Malek Boutih, the Socialist Party’s Essonne deputy and former leader of SOS Racism, is the most independently-minded socialist representative. He criticised both the SRU law and Mr. Valls’ policy in the following manner: ‘This is nothing short of pure demagogy. What Left and Right-oriented mayors refuse to do is not the fact of constructing collective housings, but to attract an Islamist population. The breeding grounds of extremism will not be eradicated through dissemination’. Indeed, the contrary is true: they are destined to increase. In other statements, including the one published in Valeurs Actuelles, the Socialist MP denounced the little deals that suburban municipalities have struck with the local Islamic authorities in complete violation of ‘secularism’.
It is furthermore obvious that Malek Boutih sincerely believes in ‘integration’ and a possible dual allegiance (being simultaneously ‘French’ and Muslim-Arab). His standpoint is a utopian one and lacks any historical basis whatsoever, regardless of what population one considers. It is solely valid for a handful of very advanced individuals. These facts make Boutih’s position admirably tragic.
A Preference for Foreigners
In a recent demonstration organised by the Greens (i.e. by pseudo-environmentalist leftists) in support of illegal immigrants, a provocative slogan could be read, sprawling across a huge banner: ‘Foreigners — love them or leave France’, which was meant to be a response to another slogan coined by the Identitarian movement, namely ‘France — love it or leave it.’ The message behind the former was the following: ‘Natives, be gone if you refuse to submit to colonisation and foreign invasion’. Do they mean to drive out the French from their own homes? (Mind you, young indigenous elites are already emigrating massively...) This implicit anti-French racism had already been expressed by Mitterrand, the cunning and ambiguous demagogue, when he said: ‘They have found their home in ours’. This is the very foundation that supports the ethno-masochistic pathology pervading the leftist elites, one that has led to the famous ‘French suicide’ analysed by Eric Zemmour, the bane of the self-righteous. In this sense, the French oligarchy is accountable for what is happening to its people: for the first time in history, Europeans are involved in the organisation of their own invasion, programming it themselves, without the need for any external military aggression. This collaboration is no longer forced (as it was in 1940–1944), but voluntary.
