Ethnic apocalypse, p.12
Ethnic Apocalypse, page 12
Psychotic Islamo-Leftism: The Hamon Case
Owing to his cowardice and opportunism, socialist politician Benoît Hamon (who feels that ‘there are too many Whites in Brest’) has converted to Islamo-leftism, despite participating a few years ago, alongside Caroline Fourest,95 in a campaign to support Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born and Muslim Dutch MP who was being targeted with death threats for having authored the short film entitled Submission, whose director, Theo van Gogh, had been cold-bloodedly murdered by Moroccan jihadists. Hamon has changed a lot. Today, it is unlikely that he would ever dare support anyone whose life is threatened by a fatwa.
Benoît Hamon, who, let us not forget, actually won the French Socialist Party’s (PS) primary elections, is a living caricature of Islamo-leftism. He was, at the time, labelled the ‘mixed-race republic’ candidate. As is the case with many other people, this Breton man’s mind now borders on pathological psychosis. Having lived in Africa, he deplored the following fact: ‘When I returned to Brest, I found the city to be very white indeed. To be honest, I even thought there were too many Whites’. He had previously confessed that ‘being insulted by racists is a source of great pride’. Is he not aware of his own, explicit anti-White racism? Not at all, for he is too narrow-minded to realise it. At any rate, if any right-wing person were to state that he felt ‘there are too many Blacks and Arabs in Paris’, he would most certainly be sued by our courts for inciting racial hatred. Talk about double standards. Mélenchon, Hamon’s rival and a man just as fanatical and stubborn as Hamon himself, had declared at the time: ‘I would not want to live in a neighbourhood whose inhabitants are all blue-eyed and blonde’. Understandably so — for he would risk being robbed…
Once the inter-racial civil war breaks out, with its insurrectional riots, its destruction and its fatal casualties, Benoît Hamon will be one of the leading figures of the collaborationist movement, negotiating a truce with the Muslim authorities and representatives at the cost of making concessions that advantage the rioters and Muslim housing estates, in addition to showing dealers leniency… We have all borne witness to the mayor of Trappes courting Islam, which he considers to be very sympathetic. Let us not forget the role played by cynical electioneering in all of this. As pointed out by Malek Boutih, the Socialist Party’s Essonne MP and an old friend of mine, ‘Benoît Hamon has aligned himself with an Islamo-leftist fringe group and issued a discreet election-related invitation. It is a catch-all strategy — anything is acceptable as long as it attracts votes. This is the worst possible discourse, a discourse of weakness. … Not only does it justify sexist behaviour, but also a rise of radicalism. In Hamon’s eyes and those of his friends, one can criticise the Catholic Church but never Muslims’.
His electoral bastion is located in Trappes, one of the most Islamised cities in France and one of those that have been most affected by immigration settlement: nicknamed the ‘French Molenbeek’, 70% of its inhabitants are Muslim. Hamon is in his element there. Led by Marwan Muhammad and pervaded by Salafists of the worst kind, the CCIF maintains objectively close ties to radicalism and implicitly justifies terrorism, while simultaneously enjoying the support of both Hamon and his friends. The latter have also been associating with evidently anti-Zionist Qatar, whose motivations remain very unclear, and are campaigning for the recognition of a Palestinian state. Hamon has even chosen to support the wearing of burkinis on French beaches. Similarly, he defends the classic Islamo-leftist position formulated by Islam-worshipping scoundrel Edwy Plenel according to which secularism — nowadays incorrectly termed ‘secularity’ — is alleged to have discriminating, Islamophobic and even racist undertones, a view that has been borrowed from the American Left. What follows are a few cunning xenophilic thoughts expressed by Benoît Hamon, all in political cant, of course; they are all gems of our collaborationist ideology that may well be the focus of endless propaganda at the start of a future civil war: ‘How far will we go in our stigmatisation of French Muslims the moment they show that they belong to a certain religion?’ Considering the municipal bylaws that ban the wearing of burkinis ‘absurd’, he added: ‘There is no connection between jihadism and the burkini. If a woman decides to wear it, well, under the 1905 French law, she is free to do so’. The problem, however, is that she is mostly not the one to actually make this decision. Uttering these words as a leitmotiv wherever he goes, Hamon denounces ‘a secularism used as a sword against one single religion — Islam. Let us stop turning Islam into a problem burdening our Republic!’ How many deaths does it take for it become a problem, I wonder? Hamon should simply convert to Islam — for the sake of consistency.
During both the presidential campaign and his legislative campaigns in the constituency of Trappes, people often whispered: ‘Hamon is the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood’ — which is probably true. But one day, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Salafist affiliates will no longer require the services of such French collaborators, because they will have their own Arab candidates running in all elections.
The leftist media, and especially Libération, have endorsed the programme of Islam-loving, pro-immigration and xenophilic Benoît Hamon, in an attitude that sometimes borders on caricature. Completely indifferent to our indigenous people, Hamon is a staunch supporter of the Great Replacement. What motivates him is not so much the ordinary anti-racism preached by the vulgate as a specifically anti-white type of racism, which is one of his pet causes and drives him to talk utter nonsense and express suicidal ideas that still manage to make good headway: ‘Migrants? We can welcome more of those’; or this one: ‘The work done by refugees allows us to earn money’. An insane demagogue, he suggests that we pay out ‘integration allowances’, even in the case of undocumented migrants, and that we create ‘humanitarian visas’ and grant migrants, without distinction, a ‘right to work’ which even our own unemployed Frenchmen are not going to be granted. We must not, of course, forget the great classics, the favourite topics of the imbecilic Left which the latter has been rambling on about for decades: the right of foreigners to vote in local elections AND the legalisation of cannabis. What the idiot Hamon fails to realise is that he is setting his own friends against him: indeed, Islam strongly condemns any sale of alcohol or cannabis. And what is more, his Brown-Black dealer friends would definitely be annoyed if the cannabis trade were legalised…
Last but not least, Hamon intends to resume the pro-thug Taubira96 reforms and strengthen them, by abolishing, for instance, all forms of imprisonment impacting ‘young people’, and creating an ‘anti-discrimination brigade’ that would target both racist and sexist discrimination and keep a close eye on all public and private practices, in accordance with a totalitarian tropism that is specific to the Left. Here is a problem for them to ponder, though: what exactly should one do if, in a Muslim family, one notices the presence of sexist discrimination against women (which is the case, generally speaking)?
Stupidity and Islamolatry:
Veiled Women = Liberated Women
Just like among Muslims themselves, one also encounters model cases of crass stupidity and absurd deception imprinted with bullet-proof bad faith among the French and non-Muslim supporters of Islamophilia.
There is a delusional conception of feminism that considers the wearing of the veil as a sign of ‘freedom’ for women. Rokhaya Diallo, ‘an intersectional and anti-colonial feminist’, advocates the wearing of the veil. Never mind the fact that it has, for centuries on end, served as a macho instrument for the derogation, relegation and oppression of women. In France, neighbouring countries and such distant places as Canada, it is now perceived as an identity marker indicating territorial occupation. The increasing number of veiled women in our public spaces is meant to imply the following to our native French people: you have been invaded, now step back!
On this very same wavelength, we have Sihame Assbague, who organises the famous ‘anticolonial summer camps’ that are off-limits to Whites, and the collaborationist Caroline de Haas, the former campaign director of Cécile Duflot,97 who was scandalised by the ‘racist’ tendency to connect the sexual assault that took place on New Year’s Eve in Cologne with the massive presence of Arab migrants kindly welcomed by Mutti Merkel. Immigrants? Of course not! The perpetrators were all aliens, don’t you know that?
Libération, which is run by Islamolatrist Laurent Joffrin and is very open to Islamo-leftism, shares Mediapart’s endorsement of the Islamic veil in all its shapes and forms (including the burkini) in the name of a ‘new feminism’ that rejects all prohibition. Seriously, how stupid can you get…98
The perverse and fanatical association known as LALLAB, which enjoys the militant support of Libération, advocates the wearing of the Islamic veil and — hold on to your hats! — the ‘right of women to be veiled’. As if they had a choice in their own families and within the religious framework that smothers them. As might be expected, some big names of the Islamosphere, all of whom are native Frenchmen like you and me, petitioned in favour of this rather peculiar association, recommending that women wear the veil — they included Benoît Hamon, the friend of the Palestinians; Pascal Boniface; and Jean-Louis Bianco, a major figure of the gauche caviar…99 The Left is not what it used to be, is it.
Another exquisite thought worth mentioning was expressed by Danièle Obono, the Parisian MP of France Insoumise, who explains that a Muslim bus driver who refuses to take the wheel of a bus that had previously been driven by a woman is not necessarily ‘radicalised’ but perhaps merely ‘sexist’. Jeannette Bougrab (the girlfriend of Charb, the cartoonist who was assassinated at Charlie Hebdo for having drawn caricatures of the prophet Muhammad…) comments: ‘She is the useful idiot, not to say the accomplice of the Islamists’. Let us also enjoy the thoughts of Idriss Sihamedi (Baraka City), who declared: ‘I think music can be dangerous, polygamy an alternative to adultery, and the veil a sign of modesty. Am I crazy to think so?’ Not necessarily crazy, no; but definitely an idiot.
What lies behind these delusions — which are not even taken seriously by those who utter them and who are perfectly aware of the pathological machismo characterising Muslims and their problematic attitude to women and sexuality — is simply Islamophilia and the blatant approval of our country’s Islamisation, colonisation, and cultural and demographic replacement. These Islamophilic collaborationists have made an ideological and political choice, opting to destroy and cast into oblivion our French and European identity, which they find intolerable as a result of an ethno-masochistic pathological affliction that merits psychoanalysis.
Other Collaborationists That Approve of Islamic Jihad
What the intellectual divide on the causes of jihadism actually conceals is the opposition between the Islamophiles that endorse it in a subtle manner and the others.
A few months after the jihadist attacks of November 2015, Eugénie Bastié, a journalist and investigator specialising in intellectual debates, published the following in Le Figaro (6th May, 2016):
The Islamist attacks have led to intellectual disagreements. … The debate centred around the interpretation of the causes of jihadism is now raging between those who perceive it as a generational and nihilistic sort of rebellion [meaning those that are Islamophilic and attempt to vindicate Islam] and the supporters of the culturalist theory that considers Islam to be the very root of evil.
Within the politically correct camarilla that espouses the first view, let us mention the presence of Michel Serres,100 who, as part of his perfect compatibility with Islam, explained to an enthusiastic audience attending a festival organised by our self-righteous daily Le Monde that jihadist terrorism had claimed fewer victims than cancer and road accidents, before adding the following provocative and absurd formula: ‘Cigarette manufacturers are a million times more dangerous than DAESH’. Absolutely ludicrous. He is no more than a brown-nosing and sweet-talking collaborationist, bending over and taking it like a champ.
Alain Finkielkraut, the new bête noire of the self-righteous, celebrates the founding of our ‘surging national spirit’ party, of our resistance in the face of Islamic violence, which he contrasts with the ‘party of Otherness’. He continues to be ostracised and insulted, particularly by Alain Badiou, the icon of the French radical Left and ever-popular Islamo-leftist Marxist who issued this pathetic declaration after the Paris attacks of autumn 2015:
We must not forget that such frightening mass murders occurred day in, day out in other parts of the world, and still do. … Religion [he does not have the courage to say “Islam”] has always been a pretext, a rhetorical cover, one that can be and is manipulated by fascist gangs.
Here we go again… Such old Stalinist jargon cannot go unappreciated. Muslim killers and white fascists, what’s the difference! And in Alain Badiou’s eyes, these fascist groups themselves are obviously manipulated by — guess who? Why, ‘globalised capitalism’, of course! In short, it is capitalism that kills people through the arms of the jihadists, not Islam. What beautiful analytical skill, rivalling that of Soral and Francis Cousin!101
In his desire to clear Islam and his Afro-Maghrebian followers, Emmanuel Todd prefers, for his part, to attack those that defend Charlie Hebdo, as he proceeds to denounce ‘charlist hypocrisy’. The spewing of antifa slogans and a Palestinian flag that is brandished on each and every occasion are, alongside the targeting of policemen, the daily bread of Islamo-leftists, who not only hate the French flag, a symbol of our native identity, but combine their ritualistic and overused ‘anti-fascist fight’ with a defence of Muslims, which could not have come about at a worse time. An alliance between antifascism and Islamophilia is akin to mixing chalk with cheese.
The same brainless illogicality is encountered among other, more moderate Islamo-leftists of the self-righteous Left: murderous jihadists are thus exonerated and Islam vindicated. The former are labelled ‘misled’ and ‘unbalanced’, yet are simultaneously described — in a contradictory manner, as if in an effort to incriminate French society — as being ‘desperate’ and ‘nihilists that have lost their way’. The poor despondent bastards deserve to be shown some understanding… Given their state of mind, it is no wonder that they slaughter people in the name of allah. Who could blame them, when it is not their fault?
Self-proclaimed Islamologist Olivier Roy, whose soul has surrendered to collaborationism, believes that we should not speak of ‘radical Islam’ but of an ‘Islamisation of radicalism’. Nice imbecilic jargon, I must say, representing yet another effective way to absolve Islam of its crimes. In the aftermath of the November 2015 Bataclan attacks, in which many of our French children, youths, teens, women and brothers lost their lives, this impostor wrote the following words in Le Monde: ‘Jihadism is a generational and nihilistic revolt’. Oh, really? A revolt that has lasted more than 1,400 years? Roy has adopted the insane view advocated by fashionable thug Tariq Ramadan on the relegation of young Muslim immigrants to the bottom of society (Alain Soral has claimed the same thing), implying that France is somehow responsible for this. In short, as far as these gentlemen are concerned, we were actually asking for it, asking to be targeted by this deadly jihad, right? It gets even worse, though: when it comes to vehicle-ramming attacks, which are becoming ever more frequent in Europe and involve a Muslim driver each and every time, there are none who speak of premeditated terrorism, but merely of a ‘bout of madness’. This way, one does not have to ask oneself too many questions.
Gilles Kepel, a former Islamolatrist who switched sides once he awoke to the reality of our situation, is now lucid enough to believe that the constantly rehashed term ‘radical’ is but a screen-word concealing the true face of a global ideology of conquest founded upon the ‘hegemony of Salafist discourse’, which is spreading jihadism and preparing, as part of its most important strategic objective, to ignite passions in the French suburbs. In one of Libération’s opinion columns, the author of Terreur dans l’Hexagone102 speaks of a ‘strategy that aims to foment, in a Europe considered by Daesh ideologists to be the West’s soft underbelly, a war in which everyone shall clash with everyone else and whose purpose is to trigger the old continent’s implosion’.
There are those who suddenly become lucid and whose eyes are opened by the shock of reality, yet they always retain a disheartening sort of naivety, an excessively idealistic attitude that is as disarming as it is ridiculous. In the aftermath of the Bataclan massacre, Jean Birnbaum, the director of Monde des livres,103 thus shared his thoughts on the issue: ‘The events that took place on the 13th of November have changed our entire perspective, and one suddenly understands the extreme urgency of answering the following question: “What were those people thinking?”’ Rarely does one have the opportunity to read such unintelligent questioning. What were those who established Soviet gulags and Khmer Rouge executioners thinking, I wonder? The answer is simple — the only thing on their mind was religious and ideological fanaticism. Nothing else.
As for the Bataclan killers, what they had in mind was the age-old ambition of having people submit to genuine Islam as defined by the Qur’an and the hadiths. The only horizons that their superstitious little brains have while waiting to be allowed into paradise lies in the killing of ‘infidels’ and apostates, just like their jihadist ancestors once did. Nothing has changed since the death of Mohammed in 632, and nothing ever will. And they are emulated by their admirers, who are all fascinated by their sanguinary games and shall swell the ranks of the ever more numerous future jihadists.
