Understanding Islam, page 14
Subsequently to the Islamic slaughter in January 2015, Patrick Kanner, the French Minister of Youth, Sports and Urban Affairs (yet another white elephant), had this to say about our Civic Service: ‘Seats must be given above all to suburban youths.’ What he termed ‘suburban youths’ is but a euphemism for young people of immigrant origin, 90% of whom are Muslims. He openly advocates ‘positive discrimination’ in the name of ‘the struggle against inequality and the battle for equality’. How Orwellian: we are to implement legal inequality to strengthen substantive equality. The goal behind this attitude, a completely unrealistic one, is to indulge these populations and appease them, thereby purchasing social (pardon me, ethnic) peace and avoiding Islamic radicalisation, especially through additional grants and aid. Everyone is blind to the obstructive contradictions that arise from such ‘positive discrimination’, a discrimination that has already failed miserably in the US (affirmative action). It contravenes the very principle of individual equality that one claims to adhere to while manifesting an unconscious form of racism, since one strives to present immigrants as victims despite knowing all too well that they are nothing of the sort and giving the impression that they are favoured for being less capable. The same contradiction is encountered in the case of the so-called ‘parity’ policies towards women. In short, one enforces a policy of ethnicisation and racialises social norms without admitting it, which is done mainly at the expense of our native French working classes, the hated ‘whiteys’. There is indeed a kind of statal racism being introduced, all to the benefit of Islam, which rushes in through the resulting breach to infiltrate us.
The ‘Social Diversity’ Hoax
Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, our Minister of Education, is as much of a feminist activist and a proponent of the gender theory as someone who remains silent on the issue of the oppression which women are subjected to both in Muslim countries and our Islamised suburbs. She advocates taking ‘unwavering action to promote social diversity in schools and redefine school catchment areas, so that the ministry can assume all its responsibilities regarding the assignment of students’. In other words, we are to implement forced diversity upon the school populations without the prior consent of the parents. It is meant to be a French version of American desegregation busing, which ended in complete failure and had to be abandoned. Once again, we get to catch a whiff of the totalitarian authoritarianism that we have inherited both from the worst moments of the French Revolution and from Communist ideology, an ideology which still fuels the French Socialist Party.
The very term ‘social diversity’ is pure political cant. It implies ethnic, religious and racial diversity. The ‘Republican’ discourse attempts to correct its own ideological myopia through terminological manipulation and the fabrication of a utopia dreamt up by intellectuals who lack any and all experience of life and history. This is because large-scale ethnic mixing has never been applied successfully and never will be, with a failure rate (i.e. an inevitable civil war) that is always proportional to ethnic distance.
‘Social diversity’ did of course exist all over our urban and rural habitat until the mid 20th century. The bourgeois and the proletarians intermingled, as did the rich and the poor. There was an absence of ‘class struggle’. Parisian buildings were characterised by the cohabitation of various social classes, who lived on different floors depending on their respective incomes, without conflicts ever arising. Similarly, diverse social classes rubbed shoulders in medium sized towns and villages, and it all worked smoothly. Cohabitation was successful simply because of a certain ethnic homogeneity (covering culture, religion, and origin). Today, such coexistence turns out to be impossible as a result of the inherent conflicts, since the people who are being compelled to live together have no common ethno-cultural and especially national infrastructure
The ‘anti-racist’ bourgeois leftists who lead a comfortable life among their own within protected neighbourhoods and attempt to force ‘common white people’ to coexist with immigrants would never consent to having the solution of ‘social diversity’ applied to them as well. Similarly, in an attitude that betrays their supreme hypocrisy, they take the necessary steps to avoid putting their own children in public, multiethnic and low quality schools. Historically, any prospect of ethnic cohabitation has always been impossible, let alone one with Muslim populations that share neither the same values, nor the same lifestyles. This ‘Republican’ utopia is already doomed to fail. Multi-ethnic coexistence is only possible on a superficial level among a minority of rich upper classes, in a simple reflex of long-distance ‘good neighbourliness’. When applied to lower social classes, it takes on an explosive aspect, and the currently emerging policy will undoubtedly lead to such an explosion, as part of a basic chemical reaction.
The Islamic radicalisation or ‘Salafisation’ of suburban housing estates is driving the ‘whiteys’ to flee these areas, having been abandoned by authorities that despise the sound of ‘populist’ voices. They feel that they are falling prey to the current fiscal murder-hole, as well as to the hostility displayed by the oligarchy towards them and the traditional French family model, an oligarchy that openly collaborates with their enemies. They are under the impression that the latter favours Islam on their soil, at the heart of their homeland. They are faced with constant insecurity and criminality, both of which are hardly ever repressed and remain a daily and troublesome part of their lives, a phenomenon whose origin is very well known to them. This situation will become unmanageable in the eyes of a State (where the Left and the Right have merged together) that has allowed insane migration waves to inundate the country. ‘Insane’ is the word that was used by a Japanese politician I once met during a business lunch, a man who was visiting Paris for the first time and to whom I explained the issues surrounding immigration and Islamisation and the latter’s gradual genesis since the 1960s. He listened to me talk and then concluded: ‘You have all gone insane.’
The above-mentioned feeling of abandonment is spreading, yet is ignored by the political elites, who remain disconnected from the people, whose members are burdened with insecurity and ethno-cultural dispossession in the face of this territorial devourment (occupation) and of a mass immigration that has disfigured our ancestral land. France suffers from the presence of mosques, which are being erected even in small towns, as well as at the sight of its own ruined, deserted and closed down churches.
Listen for example to the following thought, a thought combining cynicism and stupidity and formulated by Alain Juppé: ‘I have problems understanding why the French exhibit so much fear of globalisation and immigration, a fear of others…’, (stated in an interview with La Revue des Deux Mondes in September 2014). This kind of talk is unbearable. This blindness to the situation in ‘peripheral France’ (TN: the French countryside)24 disqualifies Juppé, the old politician, who is no more a ‘statesman’ than a fly can be an eagle.
The fact of actually pursuing the fleeing French natives all the way to their hideouts in order to once again impose upon them those populations with whom they do not wish to coexist (i.e. the SRU law) is reminiscent of true sadistic fury. Formerly praised, common native people now find themselves hated. The new electorate and population of the ‘New France’, the country of ‘diversity’, are the ones being pampered, subsidised, favoured, protected, indulged, defended and presented as victims, even if it is in their midst that jihadist murderers are born and thrive. The popular classes comprised of impoverished natives flee peri-urban and rural areas so as to escape the Islamisation process, and most end up voting vote for the National Front (owing to its anti-immigration programme, and not its economic policies). In the eyes of the oligarchy, they are thus off-radar, so to speak. The question is: will they rise up in revolt? One can hope so, but there is little certainty.
The Converts’ Cultural Alienation
When Islam invaded Spain and, at a much later point, the Muslim Ottomans conquered the Balkans, many people converted under the threat of force in order to avoid persecution and discrimination. Hence also the fact that great breakthroughs are attributed to ‘Muslim-Arab’ intellectuals and scientists. In reality, they were only Christian or Jewish converts who had changed their names.
Nowadays, indigenous conversions abound in a Western Europe that finds itself in the grip of a Muslim migrant flood. What accounts for this is not direct oppression, but complex motivations that mostly relate to calculating behaviour or ideological fanaticism, not spiritual sincerity and religious faith.
The first of these motivations is one of submission: in order to ‘have some peace and quiet’ in their daily lives, people living in zones whose population has become predominantly Muslim are choosing to convert and renouncing their identity. This mostly affects young European girls, of course, who allow their Muslim companion or husband to put them on a leash, as it were. Through a strange kind of psychological alchemy, this submission (which bears a connection to the Stockholm syndrome) is often paired with a provocative hatred towards one’s native culture, a culture that is relinquished as part of an act of provocation, which represents a second motivation. Displaying a psycho-pathological attitude, the European women who convert to Islam take things to the extreme and sometimes proceed to wear the veil, even the full black one. The Muslim girls who struggle to free themselves from this religion’s obscurantism must consider them to be raving lunatics.
It is not a genuine spiritual attitude but Ideological fanaticism that lies behind numerous conversions, especially among men. It affects both the extreme Left and a certain part of the extreme Right. At its worst, it embodies a syndrome that was first noticed among fanatical leftist revolutionaries during the 1970s. Many of these ardent neophytes travel to Syria and Iraq to join the crazy murderers of Allah’s Islamic State. The conversion undergone by young Europeans who bring together every conceivable element of Islamist violence bears no relevance to the peaceful conversion of Muslims to Christianity or any other religion (even if such occurrences are indeed rare, since the punishment for apostasy acts as a deterrent). Such conversions lack any sort of spirituality, their primary motivation being rooted in hatred, frustration, a desire for revenge and a will to adhere to a simple thought system, as well as to an aggressive and exciting form of mobilisation, one that is as basic as it is primal and that Islam offers the converts on a silver platter.
These conversions are highly reminiscent of what was observed in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union and other communist countries where Single Party adherence was plentiful, ‘spontaneous’ and, generally speaking, devoid of conviction. Having often given lectures in Russia, I had the opportunity to meet several former executives of the CPSU who confessed that they had never been Marxists or communists, but had simply joined the Party out of ‘necessity’, a word that can be interpreted in many ways.
‘The Extreme Right’ and Islam — Navigating over Murky Waters
It is necessary to divide the positions of the ‘extreme Right’ (a journalistic and approximate term that is somehow seen as relevant from the public perspective25 ) into three categories, in accordance with their respective attitude towards Islam and the current colonisation process.
The first category is the one whose members view mass immigration and Islam’s invasive presence as the principal threat, their main objective being the re-conquest of the European identity. For them, anti-semitism has never had, does not or no longer has any relevance. The second group is completely anti-Jewish, yet also opposed to the colonisation and Islamisation of Europe, which is often interpreted as a ‘Jewish conspiracy’. They thus espouse an ambiguous standpoint. Their favourite slogan is ‘neither keffiyeh nor yarmulke’. The third category is the most emotional and impassionate one and is comprised of anti-Zionistic Islamophiles. It is a strange Macedonian salad that brings together those with a manifest nostalgia for totalitarianism, Evolian spiritualists and intellectuals who are often loquacious and fascinated by the imagery of Fascism and Nazism. Anti-Judaism is the main source of their Islamophilia. Islam and Nazism have displayed a mutual fascination towards one another based on four structural elements: the cult of belligerent violence and anti-Judaism, along with an underlying anti-Christian attitude and a pronounced taste for a totalitarian and one-dimensional society. The third tendency mutes any possible criticism of Islamisation and mass immigration. Those who fall under this classification thus prefer to keep their focus on anti-Zionism, the defence of those unfortunate Palestinians and fundamental anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism.
Some intellectuals who belong to the Islamophilic far-Right have adopted a calculating personal attitude, one that they assume to be very subtle, but is actually utterly idiotic: that of allying themselves with the Muslim victors against the Jews and ‘Americano-Zionism’. Since the 1980s, this neo-Nazi (and subsidised) fringe of the extreme Right’s tendency to flirt with Iran’s totalitarian regime has been confirmed, especially since the regime of the mullahs welcomes and supports ‘revisionists’, who are many among its ranks. These intellectuals, often downgraded and frustrated, consider themselves victims of a scandalous and unjust exclusion at the hands of a Jew-dominated ‘system’. However, addressing their newfound masters with naive and pathetic salaam alaikums will not bestow upon them any recognition or medals, nor even any security.
The converts and Islamophiles with such a penchant (many of whom were initially European nationalists) perform delusional mental gymnastics when deceiving themselves into believing that Islam could ever regenerate Europe, especially in the face of Judaism, Americanism and a simultaneously moral and materialistic decadence. The capillary action that allowed the views of pseudo-philosopher and neo-Nazi German passionaria Sigrid Hunke (author of the previously mentioned joke-book entitled Allah’s Sun Over The Occident) to spread within this environment has played an important role in the propagation of this hallucinatory Islamophilia. Having fallen victim to the mental confusion of prolonged adolescence, those people show a fascination for the Islamic violence that targets a West which they detest but cannot even criticise intelligently, a West in which they hypocritically lead a good life. Without even a shred of reflection or analysis, they randomly associate a whole range of further behemoths to it: the US, Israel, Zionism, neo-liberalism, the ‘commodification of the world’, materialism, individualism and the ‘metaphysics of subjectivity’. Their intellectual masturbation throws them straight into the arms of an Islam that despises them. The pathetic and tragic-comic episodes involving the two stooges Alain Soral and Dieudonné, who also happen to be good businessmen but are obsessed with their hatred of Jews and admiration of Islamism, illustrate this thought perfectly.
The Jews in the Face of Islamisation
Anti-Semitism is a crime. Any author that encourages hatred against Jews or calls for their extermination would thus receive a court sentence. However, when one opens the Koran, one comes across such anti-Jewish invectives and appeals as no other religious text would allow itself to state, so much so that many current translations are diluted content-wise to make them more tolerable.
The LICRA (TN: International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism) has never expressed any worry with regard to the anti-Jewish Koranic suras that young Muslims learn by heart in France, not to mention the Hadiths, i.e. the commentaries on the life of Muhammad. Neither has the MRAP (TN: Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les Peuples / Movement Against Racism And For Friendship Between Peoples), of course, since it is pro-Arab. In Northern Europe, ‘Identitarians’ have demanded that the Koran be banned for being ‘anti-Semitic’. On the Internet, the anti-Jewish invectives found on Muslim websites are legion and yet remain completely unpunished. The recent deadly attacks committed by Muslims against Jews have not made anyone question Islam itself, and neither have all the anti-Jewish demonstrations and commencing pogroms (officially, they were just anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian demonstrations involving the far Left), a fact which is quite staggering.
Islam’s openly declared anti-Judaism is thus hypocritically tolerated by the Republic, which compensates for this by condemning the infinitely rare anti-Jewish excesses of the ‘extreme Right’. However, this unrefined pretence does not fool anyone. One can solely be anti-Jewish in the name of Islam, but none other. The notion that Muslims are anti-Jewish as a result of the Israeli issue is a historical fallacy. Even if the Jewish State did not exist, the Muslim hatred towards Jews would remain intact and unaltered, since it is taught in the Suras of the Koran itself.
The French government has made its bet: faced with submersion at the hands of Muslim populations, who make up most of our uncontrolled immigration, it has opted for submission. Islamophobia has become the number one crime. Muslim Judeophobia is tolerated, minimised or hushed up. Attacking Jews (or Zionists, by parallel semantics) is considered less serious, as they are only estimated to represent 600,000 of the population of France, do not instigate riots and their mental homeland, meaning Israel, does not have a single drop of oil among its natural resources. However, to dare attack the (minimally) six million Muslims who have already settled here is a wholly different issue.
Many representatives of the Jewish elite and of the institutions of the Jewish community are sticking to a firmly ‘anti-racist’ position, opposing anti-immigration sentiments and vilifying ‘Islamophobia’, to use the prevailing vulgate. Their position is virtually untenable. They have been unwavering in their condemnation of the National Front, even at a time when the latter, under the leadership of Marine Le Pen, has distanced itself from anti-Semitism26 .
