Understanding Islam, page 21
The powder keg is already in place, and all one has to do is to light the fuse. What a terrible feeling it is for me to find myself compelled to speculate and state that this might well be our only chance to bring about a revival and re-conquest.
The Ethnic and Military Dimensions
The rise of the confrontational opposition between Islam and our French ‘native’ society is potentially much more explosive and intense than for example that which once characterised the religious wars between Catholics or Protestants, or the one which pervaded the ideological and political conflicts that have glazed the whole of our recent history since the Revolution37 . In addition to a specifically religious, sociological and ideological conflict, there is also an ethnic dimension which, although not stated as such, has a huge impact on collective mentalities, regardless of the fact that it is both denied and repressed through the censorship (the superego) of the dominant ideology. In actual fact, Islam acts as a leaven in the rise of ethnic tensions in a publicised international atmosphere of global war opposing Islam to the West38 .
The rise in anti-indigenous racism (as well as in violently anti-Jewish racist attitudes, which is a major problem from the dominant ideology’s perspective, as it loses sight of its own comfortable standards) can objectively be observed everywhere. It parallels the daily displays of rejection that target the French or European culture and identity. The increasing number of veiled women, intended to provoke (and hardly a sign of religious fervour at all), is but a tool of ethnic challenge and territorial marking. Similarly, all one has to do is to listen to the lyrics of rap groups, whose songs can be heard everywhere, and keep track of various social networks and websites to be able to measure the inherent level of aggressiveness and desire for conflict.
Urban riots of low and medium intensity have been recurring since 2005, using any conceivable pretext. Their count has already reached the total of a hundred per year, yet only the most violent ones are ever covered by the media, who abide by a code of silence even when faced with a spree of vandalism, arsons, assaults, and clashes with the police. Whether during a football match involving Algeria, a student demonstration, an ‘incident’ where the police forces strike against delinquents, or New Year and July the 14the celebrations, rioters and ‘ethnic gangs’ are always present. Not to mention, as always, the alchemical blend of delinquency and insurgency. Although the phenomenon is intensifying, one gradually becomes accustomed to it...
However, not everyone does. Similarly to numerous interrelated yet seemingly independent phenomena, these intensive signals of aggression, which cannot evade attention in our everyday lives and are either never identified or denied by playground sociologists, are nonetheless very visible. The French people perceive them and suffer their impact, while the elites simply look away. This will change when their own sanctum is violated ... The reaction of common indigenous people is the last ingredient in the concoction that will precipitate the explosion of the powder keg.
We are witnessing a gradual geographic movement of inner emigration. The territory is becoming a patchwork comprising an ever growing number of zones that have been conquered and seized, zones where the native French are no longer welcome. These ‘invisible’ ones, who have become strangers in their own homeland and have been abandoned by a State that collaborates objectively with the above-mentioned foreign populations, granting the latter wide-scale support and favouring them despite the fact that they present themselves hypocritically as victims, may still rise up in rebellion. Combat zones will extend further, as will the scope of conflict zones and the sphere of tensions. Although currently limited to societal and economic issues, indigenous protest movements (‘Manifestation For all’, Red Caps, etc.) may yet experience such an extension and embrace revolt, a revolt against this increasingly pronounced cocktail of insecurity and ethno-cultural dispossession. The authorities have no solution to offer. Their official strategy is to deny reality. All is well in the best of all possible worlds.
There are some further disturbing elements that come into play, reinforcing the hypothesis of an explosion: First of all, the capacity of our security forces has reached the point of saturation, which means that they are unable to handle the simultaneous eruption of mass riots in several cities, a ‘military’ fact that those immigrant populations are well aware of. Secondly, our police and judicial authorities’ punitive response to crime and violence has become ridiculously low, having been weakened further by all the measures introduced by Mrs Taubira. This generates a sense of impunity as well as a destructive audacity when faced with an opponent that is deemed helpless and compassionate, which, in turn, results in a proportional increase of aggressiveness.
Another element is that of jihadist terrorism. The government has expressed great concern about all those young jihadists who have gone to fight on foreign fronts and have returned, fanaticised and prone to committing terrorist attacks. It is clear that such attacks will once again take place in France, whose borders are as permeable as sieves. Having said this, and at the risk of shocking the reader, I am convinced that terrorism may yet turn out to be a revival factor for our indigenous population, a factor that will actually serve to undermine the very cause which those who would use it against us adhere to. Last but not least, we must not forget our deteriorating economic situation, which acts as an accelerator.
As part of its Orwellian discourse, the oligarchy has passed mass immigration off as an opportunity for France, but our common sense warns us of an imminent catastrophe. The question now is: how will it all end? As in any other polemological reality, there are two possibilities: the first is that of action and reaction. It takes two to trigger confrontation. One camp will emerge victorious while the other tastes defeat. Furthermore, it is crucial for the ones being attacked — meaning those accused of being the oppressors, obviously, in line with a logical that is as old as it is common — to display the necessary moral and physical courage to defend themselves and vanquish their enemy. The second possibility is one that ethologist Konrad Lorenz spoke of, that of a Warmtod or ‘lukewarm death’. We would gradually be drowned, without really putting up a fight. Let us leave this nightmare aside, though.
In his recent essay entitled A World of Violence, Global Economy 2015–2030 (Eyrolles), economist Jean-Hervé Lorenzi explains that the intense migration flows that have been afflicting Western Europe will, through their tendency towards genuine population replacement and in conjunction with the aging of natives and our economic stagnation, result in the return of populism and war. He writes, ‘This scenario may seem utopian today, but is in fact unavoidable and must therefore be considered an invariant’.39
The Ambiguities Surrounding the National Front
Marine Le Pen has censored Aymeric Chauprade in his reference to a ‘war of civilisations’, which she deemed extremist. In a certain video, the MEP touched upon the theory of a ‘clash of civilisations’, a fact that displeased Marine Le Pen to the point of her announcing that he would no longer be the Special Advisor for International Affairs, which is to be understood more or less as follows: ‘cover up that bosom of yours, which I cannot endure to look upon’, just like in Molière’s Tartuffe. In the video, dated January the 15th 2015 (‘France is at war’), the geopolitician highlighted the development of a ‘fifth column’ threatening France: ‘France is at war with Muslims, but not at war against Muslims [...] The minoritarian argument does not hold water. The old and worn-out ideology of ‘non-amalgamation’ is not merely fallacious, but also dangerous. [...] A powerful fifth column is living among us and could turn against us at any given moment should a general confrontation arise. [...] We are told that most Muslims are peaceful, which is certainly the case, but so were most Germans before 1933 and the advent of National Socialism’.
This position, which is characterised by a good sense of observation, was rejected by the head of the National Front, who stated in a manner reminiscent of Cambadélis, Sarkozy and Juppé: ‘the responsibility of any political movement is specifically to avoid the spiral of a civilisational clash. This must be averted at all costs. It is very easy to submit to such a logic, which is an attitude that I deplore’. The problem is that reality subsists even if the ostrich buries its head in the sand so as not to see it. Following in the dominant ideology’s footsteps, Marine Le Pen strives to obscure the facts, to exorcise them. Her own niece and Vaucluse MP, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, disobeyed her and broadcasted Chauprade’s video, which is evidence of the presence of tensions that generate discord among National Front members. Just like the ‘UMPS’, Marine Le Pen seems to be adopting a vote-oriented attitude and is guilty of denying reality and aligning herself, more or less, with the prevailing vulgate. It is a political miscalculation on her part, one which Mr. Florian Philippot is certainly no stranger to.
Commenting on the recent jihadist attacks, Robert Ménard, the mayor of Béziers affiliated to the National Front, made the following very true but insufficient remark: ‘all of this is unfortunately the result of a mass immigration policy, in combination with the relinquishment of the assimilation policy’. But any policy of assimilation becomes impossible the moment mass immigration is implemented! Especially when it comes to non-European Muslim populations, all of whom are inassimilable by nature and could never integrate into Europe. De Gaulle understood this back in 1962, referring to those (in Algeria) who believed in possible ‘integration’ as ‘bird brains’, at a time when Islam had not yet been radicalised. In a display of lucidity and courage, the same Robert Ménard stated: ‘Personally, what worries me most is the low mobilisation of the Muslim population. Some Imams did come to demonstrate with me, but why were there so few Muslims? Although radical Islamists are but a minority, they hold sway over a number of neighbourhoods. People are frightened of them. Although some Muslims feel the urge to demonstrate, I am not certain that they would ever dare to. In certain neighbourhoods, some girls are insulted if they do not wear the Islamic veil. My municipal police officers have informed me that some individuals give them the finger while shouting “Allahu Akbar”. This reality must be stated as it is’.
Interviewed by the New York Times, Le Pen said that the enemy was not Islam itself, but ‘Islamic fundamentalism’, and that it was crucial ‘to avoid amalgamation’, thus reiterating the prevailing ideology’s political cant, whose claims are contradicted by reality. Simultaneously, she aims to ‘strengthen border control and resolve migration issues’. Such ambiguities are worthy of the UMP. Pardon me, of the Republicans, rather.
The Inaccuracies Pervading Mr. Valls’ Positions
Manuel Valls has blamed ‘apartheid’, ‘ghettoisation’ and immigrant ‘exclusion’ for being indirectly responsible for the recent jihadist attacks. He called for a policy of strength that would impose an immigrant ‘settlement’ process upon the ethnic French, in accordance with territorial distribution.
Conveying his best wishes to the press in January 2015, and recalling the 2005 riots which broke out in suburbs whose population is mostly of immigrant descent, Manuel Valls had this to say in the aftermath of the jihadist massacres, as if attempting to explain them through justifications: ‘Recent days have highlighted numerous ailments that plague our country, as well as several challenges that lie ahead. Furthermore, we are faced with all those divisions and tensions that have been simmering for far too long and are hardly ever mentioned, whether peri-urban relegation, ghettos, or the territorial, social and ethnic apartheid which has imposed itself upon our country. In addition to social misery, one faces daily discrimination for not having the right surname, having the wrong skin colour, or being a woman’. Let us now attempt to set the record straight after this Soviet type of discourse, this speech that is in fact intended to appease the rebellious members of the Trotskyist ‘majority’. How shall we respond to the inaccuracies uttered by our Prime Minister?
1) Both immigrant populations and the areas which they inhabit benefit from massive and very costly aid, exemptions, favouritism and ‘positive discrimination’. It is in fact the French natives belonging to our middle and lower classes that receive hardly any assistance, are overtaxed, and find themselves relegated to peri-urban areas.
2) The daily practice of racism actually targets our ethnically French population, as well as the Jews, and not the immigrants themselves. News bulletins are replete with such cases.
3) Non-European immigrant ‘ghettos’ have only surfaced because indigenous people have fled these areas, in reaction to the ever deteriorating living conditions and the relentless aggressions. At the time of the Polish, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese immigration waves, everything went well and no ghettos ever materialised.
4) The sole cause behind the discrimination, oppression and violence against women stems from the Islamisation that afflicts the very areas where such acts occur.
Mr. Valls is either unaware of these facts and is, in such a case, an unintelligent Prime Minister that has been stricken with ideological blindness and lacks the necessary knowledge to understand the situation, or is intent on wilfully deceiving people as part of a ploy which betrays his hostility towards those ‘native French’ middle classes that the Socialist Party is not particularly fond of. The latter option seems accurate to me.
A Political Class Trapped in Its Own Waking Dream
Despite being equally shocking to both Marine Le Pen and the UMPS, the ‘clash of civilisations’ (a concept that echoes Samuel Huntington’s notion of things) is a fact and not an ideological choice, one that is imposed upon us by the enemy himself. Any attempt to stop a commencing war by calling for truce and negotiations (in the genuine spirit of Munich, 1938) is evidence of an unfathomable form of stupidity. Such rejection of war can only lead to a dead-end, since the enemy desires warfare. Besides, the current situation in France and Europe cannot be remedied — regardless of any ongoing confrontation — , since we have already crossed the point of no return. Internal pacification, harmonious communitarianism, cool integration and forced assimilation are nothing short of daydreams, delirium and pure ideological alcohol, thus contradicting history, reality and common people’s experience.
When Marine Le Pen proceeded to censor Aymeric Chauprade’s words, which are based on pure common sense, she entered the spectrum of reality denial, just like the entire political, or rather politically scheming, class. She thus advocates a certain ‘French ideology’ which is identical to the one espoused by Manuel Valls (is she even aware of this?). This very ideology — which was expressed by Renan — is founded upon the utopian principle which claims that a nation’s essence is not of an ethnic and cultural nature, but of a purely political one. Therein lies the legacy of the Revolution’s cosmopolitan extremism. At the time, the idea was as innocent as it was free, since immigration did not exist. Ever since the 7th century, Islam has always been the enemy of the European civilisation, but it ceases to be a major danger as soon as it is excluded from the European space. The gravest danger is actually embodied by mass immigration, which colonises and overwhelms our lands and remains decisive as to whether or not Islam will eventually attain majority representation. A small minority of Muslims does not pose any problem whatsoever, but the presence of a radicalised Islam that has embraced its true roots and enjoys constant demographic growth is bound to result in civil war. It is this highly conspicuous fact that our population senses but the oligarchy refuses to acknowledge, similarly to the Roman aristocracy of the fourth and fifth centuries, whose members turned a blind eye to the facts that would subsequently lead to the collapse of their civilisation.
Our puny governing authorities have put certain ‘monitoring’ mechanisms in place to detect the slightest signs of young people drifting into Islamist (or, more appropriately, ‘Muslim’) fanaticism. These youths include nearly 2,000 individuals (many of whom are converts) who have travelled to Syria in order to fight, or so as to engage in massacres on Syrian soil, rather. The same mechanisms are being implemented in prisons, unsuccessfully of course, in an effort to counter proselytism — since most inmates are Muslims. Likewise, one takes no notice of all the mosques where propaganda is being spread, in parallel with the Internet. It is the consequence that one attempts to resolve, not the cause.
‘Immigrant neighbourhoods are ticking time-bombs. Civil war is looming. [...] Salafism is spreading in the suburbs with the support of certain mosques’, Ivan Rioufol noted (Le Figaro, 28/11/2014). For each fundamentalist network that is dismantled, dozens of others emerge. Islamic radicalisation is spreading in prisons, as Islam and delinquency go hand in hand. And account taken of fact that judicial impunity has been reinforced by the Taubira laws, any repression at the hands of the French State is considered no more than a mosquito bite.
But the Islamisation of France has left even its collaborators stunned, not only among the Left, which looks upon the Hamas Islamic terrorist movement with enamoured eyes and intends to recognise the Palestinian State unilaterally, but also within the political Right, as is the case with a certain Alain Juppé. The latter is the very prototype of the slithering politician who attempts statesmanlike postures, and is actually the bourgeois-bohemian Left’s candidate at the head of the Right. He admits having two enemies: ‘Islamophobia’ and the National Front. No comment is necessary.
