Understanding Islam, page 9
Following the Trappes riots of July 2013, sparked by the revolt of a couple where the woman was wearing the full burqa13 and was fined in accordance with the 2010 Law, law professor Jean-Louis Harouel published a courageous analysis in Le Figaro (07/25/2013) entitled ‘The Law On the Burqa Should Be Applied’, in which, according to some people, he commits the sin of ‘Islamophobia’.
Let us summarise the views of Professor Harrouel:
1) The violent Trappes riots, whose perpetrators were much less severely sanctioned than those who participated in the ‘Manifestations for All’ (Manifs pour tous) events, will only serve to discourage police forces from inspecting fully veiled women.
2) The ideology of Human Rights, a secular religion in itself, is a growth factor for Islam to take advantage of, a factor that is in complete contradiction to the very principle of Human Rights.
3) We are witnessing the rampant Islamisation of our society as well as that of entire territories. The process obeys a ‘political’ logic, says Professor Harrouel. I personally prefer the term ‘ethnopolitical’.
4) Islam, unlike Christianity, is incompatible with secularism, which is foreign to the Islamic system.
5) Veiled women are the instrument of a strategy whose purpose is to show the French that they are being conquered.
6) The objective is our country’s progressive Islamisation and ‘de-frenchification’, since a large number of Muslim immigrants consider themselves to be at war against France (I would add: a war of both resentment and conquest). Prof. Harrouel states: ‘The events that occurred in Trappes and Brétigny have come to remind us that there are numerous predators in our suburbs that remain ruthless towards what they perceive as French’.
7) It is imperative to uphold the anti-burqa law and its strict implementation. ‘Its relinquishment would be a triumph for Islam.’ 8) He concludes by saying that we are under duty to protect those Muslim immigrants ‘who have found in French secularism a source of liberation from the stifling conformity of Islam.’
Professor Harrouel says nothing of the ethno-anthropological dimension of the problem (but what would you expect when his analysis was published in a major national newspaper, and he himself is a professor lecturing at Paris II?). He has already ventured far enough in his analysis when implicitly refuting the difference between Islamism and Islam. However, he obviously found it difficult to say that the source of the problem does not lie in the manner in which Islam is handled in France, but elsewhere: in putting a stop to mass immigration and colonisation and repressing them. This is the so-called ‘plumber’s paradox’: it is of little use to wipe the water streaming from a leak if one does not cut off the tap water and clean up the mess ... We have brought the wolves into the fold, hoping that they will turn into sheep. The anti-burqa laws are useless. We cannot just sweep the dust under the carpet. We need to vacuum it out. France is in need of thorough cleaning, so who’s up for it?
Victimisation and Islamophobia — Islam’s Driving Forces
A certain Air Force sergeant, aged 23 and with a reputation of having ‘extreme-Right tendencies’, was arrested and jailed on account of his intention to open fire on a mosque in the Lyons area in August 2013. Back in 2012, he had already thrown a Molotov cocktail at a mosque in Libourne, without causing any damage. As might be expected, this insignificant event took on nation-wide proportions, because it was an act of Islamophobia, the cardinal sin. A rally was held in front of the mosque in Vénissieux and the rector of the Grand Mosque of Lyons, Kamel Kabtane, denounced the ‘Islamophobic climate’ afflicting France. Immediately, the entire Islamic association network and Islamophilic Left-wing community sector took full advantage of the situation and were flooded with dramatic and heartrending statements against the terrifying threat of such Islamophobia.
Dubious claims of ‘Islamophobic’ aggression are the rise, especially at the hands of veiled women. The reality is that, in France, Muslim places of worship and the Muslims themselves are very rarely attacked or threatened. 90% of all acts of desecration, theft and damage targeting Christian places of worship and cemeteries are all officially committed by ‘unbalanced individuals’ and hardly ever mentioned by the media. On the other hand, whenever there is an incident involving a Muslim victim, the situation is overhyped and overexploited.
To gain a better understanding of what is happening, one must read the Book of Deceit (R. Khawam, Phébus Editions, 1976), which analyses the profound Arab-Islamic mentality, a mentality that is already obvious in the Koran. The aim is to avoid engaging in straightforward and open battle, but rather to claim victimisation and plague the opponent with guilt so as to advance. The Muslims thus strive to come across as if they were being oppressed when they are, in fact, the aggressor and the invader. In short, what they attempt to do is to reverse the reality of things in favour of their own version of the facts. The tragedy is that, in their irredeemable naivety, politicians and journalists have been falling straight into the trap.
Not only is Islam far from being underprivileged in France, but it actually benefits from various advantages and is, one might say, sanctified by the pseudo-republican secular state: halal food is imposed upon everyone, mosques financed through public funds, abrogating and unconstitutional laws implemented in order to combat Islamophobia (i.e any criticism of Islam) under the pretext of ‘anti-racism’, etc. We are expected to stand by idly and without the slightest hint of a protest, as they, i.e. the ‘victims’, flood us. Islamophobia is therefore a semantic and ideological apparatus of paralysis, a term coined to annihilate any defensive reaction against Islamisation. The Muslims are actually right, unlike their submissive opponents: they know all too well that they will never become French nor embrace the Republic. What they want is to establish themselves here, replacing us instead of ‘becoming us’. They are more lucid than French Republicanist politicians or Terra Nova para-Trotskyists, who no longer speak of ‘assimilation’ or ‘integration’ these days, but opt for an abstract notion worthy of intellectual madmen: that of ‘insertion’, meaning our peaceful coexistence with Islam, one that has never worked historically but will somehow miraculously succeed in France.
The paradox of the fight against ‘Islamophobia’, which has seen the French collaborators with Islamisation support the arguments of the Islamists, bears within it the following implicit accusation: when it comes down to it, the ones who are truly responsible for the terrorist attacks committed by Muslims, whose beliefs have been offended, are actually the French ‘Islamophobic’ provokers. Ultimately, it is we who are the aggressors. They have come to strafe us on our own soil and to invade us, but we are the culprits. ‘Islamophobia is synonymous with defending oneself against Islamisation’, according to the prevailing ideology. Islamophobic people are bastards and far worse than Islamist terrorists. It is both extraordinary and significant that there has been no popular uprising nor any mass reaction against Islam itself following the numerous terrorist acts, save for the huge demonstrations under the slogan ‘Je suis Charlie’ (I am Charlie) that were boycotted by Muslim immigrants ... It was all but a deceitful defence of our freedom of expression, since the courts and the media continue to hunt down ‘Islamophobics’ in total contempt of this very freedom. The Anti-Islamophobia Collective of France (CCIF), which plays an instrumental role in the Islamisation of our country, is an offshoot of jihadist Islam that speaks of an ‘unfurling Islamophobic wave’ and somehow manages to keep a straight face. The invaders complain about encountering some resistance, when there is hardly any to come up against... In the absence of any actual Islamophobia, one must simply invent it. The slightest graffiti on a mosque is as good as a bomb. By contrast, the whistleblowers of Islamophobia make no mention of the rising Christianophobia, the eruption of Muslim anti-Semitism and the expansion of anti-white racism14 .
The LDJM (Muslim Legal Defence League) is a new element within the Muslim lobby in France and embodies a further structure in the wide range of (usually subsidised) associations whose official aim is to combat ‘Islamophobia’, a sinful monster that is as real as the one in Loch Ness. The LDJM was founded on September the 16th 2014 in the City of Fashion, Paris. Lawyer Karim Achoui is at the head of this initiative. Funded by Mr. Farid Belkacemi, its goal is to ‘ensure the legal defence of those individuals who face discrimination due to their actual or supposed belonging to the Islamic religion and on the basis of their religious beliefs.’
This association is but one among many others of the same ilk. Their purpose is always the same and their method, as usual, based on a completely Islamic logic: that of portraying the invader as a victim. The hypocritical and self-victimising struggle against Islamophobia is one of the weapons that facilitate the Islamisation of France. The ethnomasochistic naivety displayed by the French elites in the face of such manoeuvres is mind-blowing, since they take people for fools: not only is there no discrimination against the Muslims living in France, but the latter are, in many respects, pampered and even privileged and subsidised. The instances where secularism has been perverted to their benefit are beyond count. Not only is there no Islamophobia, but people have, in point of fact, yielded to Islamophilia instead. Every Islamophobic crime — or sin — is, in essence, considered a very serious violation of Republican, secular, substantive and impartial law.
All alleged ‘Islamophobic acts’ are but a fabrication, as are the so-called assaults on veiled women and the purported attacks on mosques. Let us point out four disturbing facts from Mr. Achoui’s perspective:
1) In France, the people who have recently been assaulted or murdered based on their religion and ethnicity have all been Jews, killed by his co-religionists. In addition, there are Catholics who almost fell victim to bombings that were thwarted in extremis.
2) The vast majority of violent acts and ethno-religious massacres around the world are committed by Muslims against Christians and other Muslims, mostly Shiites15 .
3) In Europe, the majority of attacks, assaults and violent crimes (whether fanatical-religious or simply reprehensible) involve Muslim immigrants. Let us not forget, for example, the soldiers who were injured or killed in Paris and London by assassins acting in the name of Islam. Imagine they had acted in the name of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or some other religion...
The creation of this new Muslim lobby is part of a rhetoric that is typical of Tariq Ramadan, a wolf clad in sheep’s clothing, just like Mr. Achoui: they complain and present themselves as martyrs in order to ease their conquest, impose themselves and burden the enemy with guilt. It is therefore likely that the LDJM’s primary focus will be to transform and disguise the failures of Muslims (whether those of the professional kind or any other) as discriminatory acts. Such is the ploy of the inadequate.
Is Islamism Less of a Threat Than Islamisation?
Should Islamisation not be considered the real danger, rather than Islamic terrorism? Let us now review the following twelve points, all of which are worth pondering and reflecting on:
1) People focus on the ‘Islamist’ threat spread by fanatics murderers such as Merah or Nemmouche, i.e. those pseudo-French nationals who carry out barbaric attacks and killings and are allowed to return to France from the Middle East once they have acquired enough experience and have been given the right kind of training by the ‘Islamic State’. I must remind you, however, that regardless of its origin, terrorism has never resulted in a great deal of death and destruction, unlike accidents, epidemics and open war, whose respective death tolls are far higher. The only difference is that it simply stuns and strikes at public opinion in a most blind and publicised fashion. And yet it is rather harmless, for there is a much more serious issue than Islamist terrorism : that of the Islamisation process that has been undermining us from below, just as damp gnaws away at walls.
2) Paradoxically, Islamist violence has an ‘anti Islamic’ effect that is contrary to its very purpose, namely that of triggering an awakening of consciousness with regard to both the danger of Islamisation and the very nature of Islam. Similarly, all the excesses committed by the Muslims in France as part of their conquest phase (Dar al-Harb) stimulate public awareness: identity claims, provocations, aggressions, fully veiled women, riots, anti-Jewish atrocities, jihadist websites and internet blogs, etc...
3) This is why those intelligent and cunning Muslim-Arabs, who long to conquer Europe smoothly through immigration and demographics, choose to condemn all the foolish ‘Islamist’ violence and the acts of provocation organised by a radical and fundamentalist Islam. They consider such behaviour to be clumsy, premature and counterproductive. It is a strategically calculating and cunning scheme. More often than not, what those who denounce the slaughter of Westerners shed are crocodile tears, for they cannot allow themselves to show open solidarity.
4) Only the ignorant could ever believe that there is a fundamental difference between Islam and Islamism. It is simply a matter of degree, phase and time and place strategies in the jihadist battle of conquest, as jihad can take on any conceivable form. Islam is an impervious whole that remains intolerant to anyone but itself, which is true of both Sunnites and Shiites. A moderate or secular Islam, or one that could be ‘corrected’ through aggiornamento, is an impossibility and reflects the delusions of gullible Western sheep, who are caught in a trap set by the amiable wolf in disguise, just like Red Riding Hood.
5) The (US-led) Western strategy that consists of waging war against Muslim countries and bombing the latter so as to eradicate the Islamist terrorists who threaten us and introduce a ‘democracy’ that is beyond the comprehension of those populations is complete nonsense. We have no business being there. Such an approach is counter-productive and will merely lead to a military stalemate and defeat, as was the case not just in Afghanistan but elsewhere too, serving only to increase the fanaticism of the Muslim masses in the face of the ‘crusaders’.
6) The only sensible solution would have been the ‘cordon sanitaire’, meaning the fact of terminating any and all Muslim-Arab immigration to Europe and implementing a policy of ‘demigration’, as advocated by Laurent Ozon16 , while guaranteeing real internal security. Ever since the time when, back in the 1970s, millions of Muslims were allowed to settle in Europe (in addition to all the other immigrants), we have been bringing the wolves into the sheep-pen.
7) There have been countless statements made by various Muslim authorities in Europe and throughout the world calling for the conquest of Europe, especially France, at the hands of Sunni Islam, all in perfect harmony with Koranic preaching. These appeals do not advocate a violent Islamist jihad, but recommend a gradual acquisition of power, one that is achieved from below through demographics and migration flows. In their minds, France is destined to end up becoming a Dar al-Islam (domain of Islam). These appeals and objectives are primarily broadcasted through the Internet, as well as through many other channels, reaching all the Muslims of France and never falling on deaf ears.
8) The following two elements are a source of great concern: not only do we have to deal with the rising number of indigenous Europeans who convert to Islam, but also with the Islamophilia of political and judicial authorities and that of numerous mediatic and cultural elites, who are either unaware of what their actions entail or willing accomplices, especially in France. Islam has gained a privileged and protected status and ‘Islamophobia’ is not tolerated by the ‘secular’ State. On the other hand, Christianophobia is ignored and Judeophobia repressed in the most feeble manner, the severity of the punishment depending especially on the culprit’s origins... This official Islamophilia, a syndrome of precocious submission, paves the way for widespread Islamisation.
9) There is thus an absolute contradiction between, on the one hand, the desperate efforts to fight Islamist jihad abroad using half-hearted military means (a jihad that we have actually fuelled through a stupid ‘Arab policy’, as was the case in Libya and Syria) and to try to track down potential Islamist killers in France and, on the other, the mindboggling encouragement of the massive and continuous implantation of Islam in France. This is nothing short of schizophrenia.
10) Islamist terrorist attacks (which we are bound to experience again) are obviously a horrible phenomenon in the short run, but they provide the means for an awareness to be triggered with regard to enemy identification. What is far more disturbing is the prospect of France’s disappearance and the vanishing of its age-old identity and essence in the course of the 21st century. The most dangerous aspect of Islam does not lie in the attacks committed in its name, but in its replacement of the French and European ethno-culture.
11) The question we must ask ourselves at this point was posed by Carl Schmitt: what is an enemy? It is not an opponent, meaning a competitor (like the USA, for instance), but a genuine enemy. Enemies are the ones who threaten you and desire your ruin, your death, either in the short or long term, even if they do not admit to it. Conversely, an opponent only wants to weaken you and win the contest. We must pluck up the courage to designate our primary enemy: ‘Islamic terrorism’ seems but a decoy, or rather an avatar of what overshadows, inspires and motivates it, specifically Islam itself, in all its inherent truth, which, thanks to the miracle of Allah, succeeds in imposing its will without the necessity to combat.
12) Let us end on a positive note, shall we? Confronted with various sociological and political signals, the ordinary members of our native populations (particularly in France), meaning those in contact with reality and endowed with common sense, are manifesting a silent revolt against Islamisation and, beyond the latter, against deliberate and uncontrolled immigration, a fact that sets them apart from those muddle-headed intellectuals and major mediatic and political elites who hold the reins of power at this time. It’s all good news provided that it leads to the following conviction: the solution is neither to be found in negotiations nor in the daydreams of ‘integration’, but in this simple watchword: the de-Islamisation of France and Europe and the reinstatement of democracy on their soil, meaning populism, two terms which are synonymous with one another. Everyone will thus remain where they belong, in their homeland, in harmony with Aristotelian common sense. For this to happen, however, violent confrontations will turn out to be inevitable.
