Understanding Islam, page 28
The idea of a secular and tolerant Islam, compatible with democracy and open to pluralism, as advocated by some intellectual and political circles in the West and certain Muslim countries, relates to the purest possible utopian delusion. Whether in its Sunnite or Shiite form, Islam, whose supreme expression and receptacle is embodied by the Koran, could never, in accordance with immutable dogmas that were dictated by Allah himself, accept anything foreign to its essence and its own expansion.
In this sense, ‘Islamists’ are truly the genuine representatives of Islam and, from their point of view, have every right to accuse others of being schismatics and revisionists. There are certainly many Muslim leaders who condemn both the barbarous atrocities perpetrated by the Islamic State (or Daesh) and the terrorist attacks targeting the West, which are on the increase. But this position is a purely tactical one, being neither philosophical nor moral. What they basically condemn is not jihad itself, but simply the appropriateness of the latter’s intensity.
All integration or assimilation fantasies have been rendered inapplicable by majority rule and demographic submersion. This colonising immigration process, which, for obvious mathematical reasons, will result in population replacement, is correlated with a rampant Islamisation. The ethnic factor is thus strengthened by a religious element. If nothing changes and no resistance struggle nor counter-offensive ever occur, we will be heading straight towards a dramatic civilisational reversal. The majority of our (indigenous) people sense this, but not most of our political leaders, who remain both blind and deaf to the collapse of our French national identity.
Although Islam may come out victorious in the medium term, it will certainly be defeated in the long term (TN: Although the author seems willing to accept such a medium-term outcome, one that contradicts his previous prediction, there is no doubt in his mind that Islam will ultimately fail in its attempts to impose itself). It is doomed to be vanquished because of its spiritual poverty, and its general deficiency in all areas relating to organisation, as well as to political and social life. It does not offer a solution to any issue, but amplifies problems instead. It is structurally below the average cultural and intellectual level of humanity. Its moral rigidity, its intolerance, its desire to standardise both customs and laws, and its obscurantism are completely at odds with its desire to conquer a pluriform humanity. As far as the levelling of peoples’ identities is concerned, there is a surprising kinship between the cultural homogenisation caused by ‘Americanisation’ and the one desired by Islam; the difference is, however, that the former is non-violent, never dictated upon individuals and always subject to refusal, whereas the latter is violent, compulsory, sterilising and totalitarian. But humanity is more intelligent than Islam, whose eyes are larger than its stomach. Islam lacks any notion of freedom, just like its aborted sibling, Marxism. The two major weaknesses of Islam — in connection to the peoples that adopt it — lie in its cultural, intellectual and scientific sterility, as well as in its inherent violence, which always end up alienating people.
In the course of the 21st century, the current rise of ‘re-Islamisation’ — meaning a return to Mohammedan Islam on a worldwide scale — is likely to be replaced by a massive reflux, a movement of disenchantment, disappointment, revolt and weariness in the face of the catastrophic results generated by radical Islam wherever it becomes settled, meaning sheer disorder and barbarity. It is the Muslims themselves who will be the first to reject Islam. We are not, however, that far yet.
This is because Islam is currently undergoing a (temporary) global renewal of incredible strength, which breeds fascination. The Course of History is in its favour at the moment, and the river current flows auspiciously, but that flow is ephemeral and will dry up in the very sands where it was born. The Koran’s Arabian ingenuity has allowed it to become one of the leading literary monuments of humanity, but its cold beauty and repetitive conceptual poverty are sterilising: the contribution made by Islam and the peoples who have adopted it towards humanity’s well-being is insignificant compared to the achievements of other civilisations.
The psycho-rigid and cruel ethics advocated by Islam are very different from that of other religions and can only lead to hypocrisy, because its requirement of absolute ‘purity’ is obviously not adhered to by its followers, who constantly seek to circumvent, distort, and breach its leonine and puritanical regulations. It is not ‘virtue’ that one encounters in the canons of Islam, but permanent lies, rather, a fact which results in neurotic behaviour.
At the Tribunal of History, Islam will leave nothing major or dominant to remember, whether in the field of art, spirituality, philosophy, or science. Islam’s creative / destructive balance is in great deficit (in favour of the second option), as part of what Ferdinand Braudel termed ‘the long historical trends’. What people will recall of Islam is not its creations, but its jihad, violence, wars, iconoclastic destruction, and the oppression committed in the name of ‘Allah’, this problematic concept of a rather dumb deity that only spoke to its oracle Muhammad through the angel Djibril, in the Arabian desert. Can all of this truly be taken seriously? The theology of Islam follows a standard that is reminiscent of fairy tales and the childish belief in Santa Claus. As an Aristotelian and, therefore, theo-sceptical pagan, I feel more interested in the complexity that characterises the Incarnation and Passion of Christ than in the guerrillas, visions and adventures of Muhammad.
The main danger that threatens Europe is its demographic submersion through an invasive immigration movement that involves African and Middle Eastern populations which are predominantly Muslim, combined with the significantly higher birth rate of the already present foreign populations. This leads to a process of occupation and population replacement, which, although progressive, remains sufficiently swift and in constant acceleration since the 1980s. The second threat originates from the mediatic-political oligarchy that infects the public mind and thus paralyses all resistance, using a soft ideological hype that misrepresents reality.
Demographics is the only accurate human science. The demographic vigour of a people determines its capacity for both prosperity and emigration from its own territory. Its demographic weakness causes it to become the target of immigration upon its own soil, before triggering the global decline of its power, influence and abundance, and ultimately its own demise. As in physics, it is an issue of high and low pressure.
The principal threat to Europe does not come from its submission to the United States, which it can always liberate itself from, nor does it stem from a ‘cultural Americanisation’ that is infinitely less serious than Islamisation (and has served to divert the attention of Marxists and Right-wing intellectuals), but derives from the combination of two factors: a huge migratory pressure originating mostly from North Africa, the Middle East and black Africa, in addition to the declining birth rate and considerable demographic aging that afflict Europe, all against the backdrop of Islamic infiltration into European societies, an infiltration that is conducted forcefully and is not a source of progress and enrichment (as the babblings of Jack Lang would have us believe), but of regression and barbarism.
There shall be a turning point to the crimes committed in January 2015 by those Muslim murderers, who are ironically referred to as ‘Islamists’. This is because, despite the huge demonstrations and consensual mediatic hype orchestrated by the dominant ideology in order to appease the situation and conceal the real issue, the message has now been inscribed in blood upon the minds of a major part of our French people: Islam is waging war against France and Europe on their own soil. The masses always remember the simplest things: it is obvious that, although most immigrants and people of non-European immigrant descent are neither terrorists nor criminals, all of the former and most of the latter are Muslim. These are sociological facts that resist all intellectual and mediatic exorcism.
We cannot foresee the forms nor the intensity of our conflict with Islam, but it will take place in Europe (and especially France), a fact that none of us can escape. Of course, as in any conflict, there will be minorities in the opposing camp. A small number of Muslims will obviously join the ranks of the indigenous resistance. And, unfortunately, a large number of natives will fall in with the aggressors, either out of fear or out of calculation. But a clash is certain to come about.
All the warning signs are visible, but are concealed by those journalistic, political and intellectual exorcists. The horizon is overcast with clouds and a hurricane is taking form. Soon it shall unleash its fury. People will turn a blind eye, preferring to reassure themselves, not to see anything, and not to anticipate any developments, while all the prophets of doom face condemnation. Let them be silent! Why do they not allow us to enjoy a few haphazard moments in the course of our own waning! ... What we desire is to continue daydreaming ... We want to deny reality.
And then the storm rages, and devastation ensues. Ideas are swept away by Facts, as Aristotle surpasses his teacher, Plato. What once was predictable (and denied) has taken place. Cassandra was right. Attitudes change at breakneck speed, and eyes are opened. History reclaims what it is rightfully entitled to, meaning its deepest essence, founded upon the rivalry of nations. The Kantian utopia of perpetual peace, a universal government, humanistic harmony, and the abolition of borders collapses, leading to generalised war. Aristotle believed that everyone should remain on their own soil, within their own borders, in a state of armed peace founded upon cooperation and monitored exchange.
The only way to avoid defeat is to prevent Islam from settling in Europe and compel it to retreat. To drive it back and not to accept it as ‘just another feature’ of our societies. For it is anything but that. In his memory book entitled It was de Gaulle (Arthème Fayard, 1994), Alain Peyrefitte, who was a minister and acted as our General’s and President’s confidant, quoted these remarks, made on March the 5th 1959:
‘It is highly commendable for there to be yellow, black, and brown Frenchmen. This demonstrates the fact that France is indeed open to all races and has a universal vocation. But only under the condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are, after all, a primarily European people, belonging to the White race, the Greek and Latin cultures and the Christian religion. Let us not deceive ourselves! Have you ever had a look at the Muslims? Have you ever seen them in their turbans and djellabas? You can tell that they are not French. Those who advocate integration have the brain of a hummingbird, even if they happen to be knowledgeable. Try to mix oil with vinegar, and then shake the bottle. After a while, the two will separate again. The Arabs are Arabs, and the French are French. Do you actually believe that the French body can absorb ten million Muslims, whose numbers will reach twenty million tomorrow and forty the day after that? If we practiced integration, if all the Arabs and the Berbers of Algeria were considered French, how would one prevent them from coming here and settling in France, where living standards are so much higher? My own village would no longer be called Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises, but Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées’. [TN: ‘église’ being the French word for ‘church’, while ‘mosquée’ means ‘mosque’.]
Rarely has anyone witnessed such prescient common sense. But De Gaulle was a statesman, not an intellectual. The least that one could say is that his successors have been unable to live up to his standards, for they have all been nothing but prigs. It is thus the word ‘resistance’ that springs to mind, followed by ‘reconquest’.
Appendices
A Predictable Religious War in Europe
According to Egyptian priest Henri Boulad, ‘there is blatant discrimination and intolerance (targeting Coptic Christians in Egypt, as well as Eastern Christians). Islam is of a totalitarian essence. [...] It must be said that the Sharia contradicts every form of democracy’. Challenging the difference between Islamism and Islam, he explains further: ‘Islamism is simply Islam unveiled. By nature, ever since its inception, Islam has been radical and political. It is focused on conquest and desires to dominate Europe through a triple tactic: birth rate, immigration, and conversion. It admits its intentions openly and yet people refuse to believe it to be true. One even attempts to exonerate it from its own statements’. (Valeurs Actuelles, 2–8/01/2014)
To him, Islamophobia is a weapon wielded by Islamists in their attempt to burden bewildered Europeans with guilt ‘by manipulating our secularism’. Deploring the EU draft law that strives to punish all anti-Islamic statements and pointing out the fact that any attack upon a mosque in France (there are very few of those, and only ‘tagging’ is generally resorted to) generates ten times more indignation that those dozens of burned churches in the Middle East, not to mention all the murders and terrorist attacks, he finally states: ‘I believe that we are witnessing the onset of a religious war in Europe, resulting from the cowardice and corruption of your political elites. [...] If Europe yields to this ploy, the game is over. Once one loses their freedom of expression, all that is left is for them to descend into the streets in the millions’.
The National Front displays a certain naivety towards Islam. MP Marion Maréchal-Le Pen has stated the following: ‘The imams who would like to preach in France should sign a charter guaranteeing freedom of expression, gender equality, democratic practices, the superiority of the French law over the Islamic one, and freedom of religion’. Does she really think that such a charter could ever be possible? Is she unfamiliar with the very nature of Islam? Gender equality, freedom of religion, and the prevalence of civil laws over religious legislation are completely at odds with Islamic law, meaning the Sharia. From a theological perspective, the latter asserts its superiority over all secular laws, which it intends to eventually abrogate and replace.
No imam will ever be willing to sign such a charter. One would think that we are dealing with the ‘priest-jurats’ of the French Revolution. That being said, we cannot blame the Vaucluse MP for proposing an impossibility. She has run out of options and must come up with something to say. She can no longer openly state that a religious war is commencing and that the solution does not lie in having those imams swear their allegiance to a France or a ‘Republic’ that is of no interest to them, but in their departure and silence.
A Fictional Political Projection into 2015–2040:
The Three Possible Scenarios — French Demise or Rebirth?
Let us review three theories. The first condemns us to a lukewarm death, while the second involves our country’s partition, and the third a revolution. The prospect of peace and prosperity is absent because it is no more than a fairy tale. Let us now delve into a bit of political fiction.
Scenario Number 1: Our Country’s Lukewarm Death
In this first scenario, things continue to deteriorate, but only lead to a minor implosion rather than a violent crisis. Uncontrolled immigration and Islamisation keep on making headway. The economic situation continues to worsen, as our public debt doubles (totalling 200% of our GDP). Unemployment remains massive and experiences no decline. Compared to 2008, the GDP per capita (a measure of household wealth and living standards) will have declined by 15% in 2020. An unprecedented event. Our young native elites will continue to flee (to emigrate, I beg your pardon); low and medium intensity riots, organised in our cities or suburbs under every possible pretext, will combine with acts of plunder, looting, and arson and result in the occasional fatal casualty, adorning the news. The rioters themselves will mostly be suburban youths of immigrant origin. Their impunity is, generally speaking, guaranteed to prevail: such is the culture of justification disseminated among the judges and formatted by the dominant ideology. It is nothing new.
Meanwhile, the Islamisation afflicting our society keeps spreading gently, akin to a gradual flooding process, particularly in the administration sphere, but also within our justice system, police, army, and all of our political parties. By 2030, the French Jewish community will have decreased in number, dropping from 600,000 to no more than 300,000, as its members emigrate to Israel and the USA in a desire to escape the daily hostility that a growing part of the young Muslim-Arab population harbours against them. The Jewish intelligentsia still thinks of itself as being immune, having also succumbed to a belief in the anti-Semitic myth of automatic Jewish protection.
Crime and insecurity, which have been experiencing constant growth (and whose source is always the same), are now accompanied by incessant raids that target our villages and countryside. The police and the gendarmerie are overwhelmed. The ‘judicial response’ remains insufficient, which spreads a sense of impunity. And yet the French are becoming accustomed to the situation: they barricade themselves, gather in suburban areas, and organise themselves into self-defensive militias. A territorial ‘leopard skin’ expands everywhere, as ethnic communities gather among their own in urban or rural zones. In all areas where the native French assemble, a number of ‘integrated’ people of immigrant origin are joining them. But now, there are many towns, housing estates, and neighbourhoods that belong entirely to Africans or Muslims, places where no Europeans reside nor ever enter. The local municipalities have fallen completely into those foreigners’ hands, both implicitly and factually, as the French State refrains from implementing its authority in those areas so as to avoid ‘provocation’ and ‘stigmatisation’. The endless rhetoric revolving around ‘secularism’ or the ‘Republic’ is still adhered to formally, but everyone senses that it is nothing more than hollow drivel.
The areas that have been stricken with lawlessness, or rather those that abide by another legislation, are on the increase. At times, the Islamic Sharia is even applied openly, in complete illegality. All women are compelled to wear the Islamic veil, while a halal dietary requirement is imposed upon all businesses, schools, etc. In these areas, a parallel economy is tolerated with utter impunity, an economy that is essential for financial survival and largely based on drug trafficking. The number of madrasas, or Islamic schools, is growing, as is the number of mosques, which are often established in old, repurchased churches. The cases where the Sunnite oil monarchies finance such projects abound, as the French Republic averts its eyes, gently falling into a deep slumber. A fragile semblance of civil peace reigns, but one must strive to avoid the explosion.
