Understanding islam, p.15
Understanding Islam, page 15
They are very surprised at the fact that Muslims are not returning the favour of demonstrating amicable intentions. Are they naive enough to think they could divert the ever more numerous Muslims from their intrinsic anti-Judaism and thus appease them? They subscribe to the delirious doctrine that centres around the prospect of a secular Islam. They are bound to be disillusioned. None are more threatened by Islamisation than they are. Already now, Jewish children do not attend public schools in Islamised areas and Jewish emigration out of France is surging.
The elites of the Jewish community truly underestimate the consequences of mass immigration and Islamisation and the latter’s impact on them. Why? Because they overestimate themselves and believe that they will manage to keep the situation under control, which they will not. They will come up against a low intensity war, a soft one, and will end up being swept away, just like other Islamophilic collaborators.
In March 2011, in an interview with Elle magazine, Marine Le Pen declared that one of her friends, a talented painter, was Israeli and that she would gladly take a holiday in her country. Then, in Le Point, she described the Shoah as ‘the peak of barbarism’. Following this, she was invited to participate in a talk on Radio J. But the pressures, particularly those exerted by the CRIF (TN: Representative Council of Jewish Institutions), forced Radio J. to cancel the interview. Frédéric Haziza, the man who was to interview Le Pen, specified his position on the issue in Le Journal du Dimanche (12/03/2011): ‘What hurt my feelings was hearing that I had validated an anti-Islamic rhetoric by issuing this invitation. To me, there’s no difference between anti-Arab, anti-black and anti-Jewish discourse. Moreover, although a large part of the Jewish community does not identify with the National Front’s rhetoric, I have regretfully noticed, at times, a distrust of Islam. The community has been traumatised by the emergence of an anti-Semitism of Islamic origin. [...] This has led some, including the Jewish Defence League, a racist splinter group employing fascist methods, to draw closer to the extreme right’.
Frédéric Haziza thus falls into clichés and repeats the counter-truths of the prevailing vulgate: Marine Le Pen does not resort to any ‘anti-Islamic discourse’ when opposing the Islamisation of France. Similarly, opposing the Arabisation and Africanisation of Europe bears absolutely no connection to anti-Arab or anti-black racism (otherwise, De Gaulle would have been racist, wouldn’t he?). When Haziza regrets the ‘distrust of Islam’ (an understatement that allowed him to dodge the word ‘fear’) stemming from a part of the Jewish community, he thus expresses a certain contempt for lower or middle class Jews, who, on a daily basis, find themselves under increasing pressure from Muslim immigrant populations in mixed areas. Does he even know about this, I wonder? Things have taken such a bad turn that Jewish children are ending up in religious schools, sometimes even Catholic institutions, so as to avoid the public schools in those neighbourhoods. A religious Jew can wear his yarmulke in the 16th district of Paris, but there are places where doing so becomes hazardous. Frédéric Haziza is unaware of this. He loves Islam, does not stand against the Islamisation of France, supports the multi-ethnic utopia and believes in a bright co-habitational future that would keep the Jews safe from any sort of trouble. His awakening, just like that of other people, is destined to be painful once he has emerged from his daydream.
In the end, Frédéric Haziza is a superficial journalist. He imagines that anti-Semitism only concerns fanatical Islamists and some overzealous individuals. Were he to investigate the situation, he would see that anti-Jewish discourse is perfectly commonplace among Muslim immigrant populations. As for the alleged parallels between the Jewish Defense League (LDJ) and the extreme Right that he denounces, he had better focus his interest on the proven convergence between the anti-Semitic fringe of the Islamophilic far-Right and the Islamists, of which Soral and Dieudonné are shining examples.
Are the authorities (especially since the Socialist Party has taken control) cutting the Jews loose and playing the Islamic card? Overall, the hand they are playing is that of an invasive Muslim immigration, while leading the Jews to believe that they are not under any kind of threat and protected. Lies. The desertion of the Jews by the powers-that-be is logically accompanied by an emphatic and hollow discourse on the Holocaust and its commemorations, which are rejected by the Muslim community. The authorities do not concern themselves with the fact that, as a result of immigrational flooding, primary and secondary schools have, with total impunity, been overrun by anti-Semitism and anti-white / anti-French racism. Parading around at CRIF dinner events does not take much effort. The Socialist authorities’ show of theatrical philo-Semitism is proportional to the protections and privileges granted to an Islam that is as anti-Semitic as it is anti-French. The great theatrics founded upon ridiculous statements such as ‘France would no longer be France without the Jews’ have left the increasingly worried Jewish middle class indifferent. Among Muslims, however, they have fuelled the idea that ‘the Jews rule France’. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
The reason why anti-Semitic aggressions are a source of horrendous headache for the government is that they are perpetrated by the latter’s friends, their Muslim protégés and coveted voters. The authorities thus long to buy social and ethnic peace at any price. The French government’s pro-Jewish statements are all the more grandiloquent as they are insincere and ultimately ineffective. Reassuring the Jewish community in words but not in deeds — such is their line of conduct. It is as if a shepherd were to say to the sheep and ewes that he guards: ‘My dear friends, I love you but I shall allow the wolves to enter the fold. Do not worry, though, for everything is under control and will turn out well. We shall all live together henceforth’. Mind you, civil wars are fought by people living together.
The Church Versus Islamisation — Arising Ambiguities
Mosques are being erected on our territory at great speed, proportionally to the demographic inflation of the Muslim community. There are already 2,500 mosques and prayer rooms in France, 1,000 of which have been built during the past fifteen years. In 1985, the total was 500 mosques. This is the most spectacular increase in the entire Western world, a record for a country that claims to be the world champion of ‘secularism’. The Muslim community in France demands that the number be increased to 5,000 mosques eventually, a figure relayed by Dalil Boubaker. Additionally, 300 mosques are under construction as we speak, which is certainly more than the number of churches being built... The reluctance of both mayors and local inhabitants is gaining in intensity, a sign of this becoming a burning and volatile issue.
Bernard Cazeneuve, The French Interior Minister, is as falsely secular as he is a genuine supporter of the Islamisation of France. He lashed out with the following threat: ‘I will not allow mosque construction projects to be hampered by representatives whose pretexts conceal their own political motivations’. The French ‘secular’ Republic is thus trying to impose upon its people an acceleration of the establishment of Islam, while facilitating a mass immigration that involves a Muslim majority. On his part, Dalil Boubaker, the deceitfully moderate rector of the Parisian mosque, former president of the CFCM (TN: French Council of the Muslim Faith) and a man specialising in double discourse, made a statement to Europe 1 radio network on June 15th, 2015 suggesting that derelict churches be turned into mosques, before recanting eventually, particularly in an interview with Valeurs Actuelles which followed a petition organised in July 2015 by the above-mentioned weekly and writer Denis Tillinac against the conversion of churches into mosques, a petition that gathered tens of thousands of signatures. But what is most amazing are the remarks of Mgr Michel Dubost, Bishop of Évry: ‘In principle, I would rather see churches become mosques than restaurants’. Oriental Christians, who are being persecuted by Islam and whose churches are burned, dynamited or turned into mosques, will certainly appreciate these comments coming from a French Church whose prelates have been burdened with mental deficiency. The same affliction has stricken our ‘Republican’ leaders.
Pope Francis considers himself to be the heir of Saint Francis of Assisi, the poor man’s friend. He recently visited the island of Lampedusa. It is one of the main entrances used by thousands of African migrants to enter Europe, some of whom drown during their sea journey. Their exploding numbers are expected to reach an unheard of 500,000 in 2015. It is an invasive process involving bogus refugees who are Muslim in 90% of all cases and whose arrival has, to a great extent, been orchestrated by Daesh and other Islamists. Very few will be expelled or deported. They are attracted by the suction pump that the various types of social assistance generate. On 8th July 2014, the Pope gave a speech in Lampedusa, a speech in which he addressed illegal immigrants and Europeans alike and that, with all due respect to the Holy Father, can be only described as demagogic and irresponsible.
‘Instead of carrying them towards a hope for a better life, these boats have led them to their deaths [...] Who is responsible for the blood of these brothers and sisters? No one! We all answer, saying: “it wasn’t me, I’m not from around here, others should be held accountable, but certainly not me”. However, God asks each one of us: “Where is the blood of thy brother that cries out to you?”[...] Our culture of well-being has led us to think solely of ourselves and made us insensitive to the lamentations of others’. It leads us to the ‘globalisation of indifference’, which ‘has deprived us of the ability to cry’. The implication is the following: it is we Europeans who are responsible for the deaths of these boat people, when they are the ones that are destined to help us and save us! The smugglers themselves, on the other hand, who also happen to be Muslims and bear the sole responsibility for their co-religionists’ drowning, are not even incriminated. The Pope urged the residents of the island, overwhelmed by the endless arrivals of illegal African immigrants, to ‘persevere in their human and Christian solidarity’. He invited everyone to pray so that they can ‘find it within their hearts to welcome immigrants. God will judge you on how you have treated those who need you most’. It was a clear message to the Europeans: open your borders to immigrants from all around the world but particularly Africa. For good measure, the mayor of the small island asked us to ‘become aware of our responsibility and our duty to welcome immigrants’. ‘Suicidal’ is not strong enough an adjective to describe these words. The humble native Italian population’s opinion is not taken into account, since it is insignificant when compared to Morality.
Those people are not persecuted ‘refugees’, but mostly illegal settlers. The Pope’s discourse acts as an incentive for the primarily Muslim immigrant invasion of Europe, all in the name of ‘charity’. He then proceeds to burden Europeans with guilt, accusing them of committing a blatant injustice. As a matter of fact, it is only in Europe that people show such (dangerous) generosity towards immigrants, as Europeans are the only ones not to dare repel or deport them. The words of the Pope, which are identical to those spoken by the late Abbé Pierre and reflect what numerous Catholic prelates think, express little care for the plight of indigenous European populations, especially the working classes, who suffer from the colonisation and Islamisation that seep into their soil from below. This ideology, which is one of pseudo charity, thus assumes responsibility for the coming tragedies and potential civil wars that this senseless immigration flood is bound to trigger.
Even more serious is the Pope’s following statement: ‘My thoughts go out to the dear Muslim immigrants whose Ramadan fasting is commencing. May they claim abundant spiritual fruits. The Church stands by your side in your search for a better life for yourselves and your families.’ He thus encourages this invasive religious ideology to tighten its grip on Europe, no more no less, even as Christians currently face persecution, ostracism and expulsion from almost all Muslim countries. In Islamic circles, such submission is certain to arouse laughter. However, these words are also a source of clarity: the Church has objectively become a major catalyst in the colonisation and Islamisation of Europe. Still, there is a considerable downside to such remarks: both the persecuted Eastern Christians and their prelates are horrified at the casualness and unconsciousness displayed by their Western Catholic counterparts. They feel that what has befallen them may well end up happening to us. Are they really wrong to think so?
The Muslim-Secular Resistance
Within the opposition not only to ‘Islamism’, but to also to Islam itself, the greatest fighting spirit has come from men and especially women of Arab, Kabyle, Pakistani, Iranian descent etc. They are not afflicted by the mental complex of Westerners, who remain terrified at the idea of being labelled ‘racists’ should they ever criticise Islam. These people know what they are talking about, especially the women. They are well aware of the fact that ‘their’ religion oppresses them. Salman Rushdie, an emblematic personality that was targeted by a fatwa (an Islamic death sentence) declared by Iranian führer Khomeini, the beribboned dictator, was the first to resist Islam.
The extraordinary courage exhibited by a number of Maghrebian, Middle-Eastern and Asian women (regardless of whether they are intellectuals or not) who rose up against Islamic totalitarianism contrasts with the cowardice of French and Western feminists. The latter have mobilised to support the teaching of the ‘gender theory’ in schools and in favour of sexual ‘parity’ in both executive boards and political elections (strictly superficial issues that lack any interest whatsoever), but remain silent in connection to the horrors endured by women under Islam, not only in the Muslim world, but even in France itself.
Although originating from the political Left, the Riposte laïque (TN: Secular Response) movement is frowned upon by politicians and journalists alike, because it challenges the Islamisation of our society and Islam’s aggressive dominance over both secularism and republican laws, a grip that persists with total impunity in all areas where Muslims make up most of the population. If Secular Response were to wage attacks upon crèches or (the very rare) Catholic processions, it would merit the dominant ideology’s applause. Collaborator Edwy Plenel and all his friends would have relished such an act. Having said this, collaborators always come up short. In the poker game of history, it is only the resisters or the invaders that can come out victorious.
Collaborators always suffer defeat because they are caught between the hammer and the anvil. They are considered traitors by both sides, be it the ones they have deserted and betrayed or the ones that they have aligned themselves with. Deemed insincere, they will never be given any recognition. Collaborators can only sneer, with neither laughter nor tears, for their journey ends in defeat. Aristotle believed that any calculation can be successful provided it is consistent. Collaboration with Islam, however, is synonymous with inconsistency.
Chapter IV: The Islamic Ideology: Divisions, Contradictions and Ruses
This chapter addresses the question of the ideological rhetoric used by a radicalised and expansive Islam, a rhetoric to which a part of the European intelligentsia has succumbed, including Left-oriented journalists, who embody a major source of influence upon the political class.
In its process of conquering Europe, which is primarily founded on the extraordinary strategy of peaceful immigration and demographics, Islam has been displaying its ingenious ability to deceive. Its attitude is one that combines two extremes: it complains of the fact that its followers are being victimised, but its real purpose is to conquer and invade. Islam resorts to a double discourse, especially in Europe, one where genuine Islam, meaning that of totalitarian intolerance, is taught in secrecy and spread by the winds of propaganda, while simultaneously presenting itself as perfectly ‘normal’ and respectful of both democracy and peace. Marxist Communism used the same rhetorical ploy, a ploy that is as old as the world itself and was defined as ‘antilogical’ by Aristotle: one attempts to justify or deny the chasm between one’s ideological prolegomena and their consequences and applications. Tyranny always strives to come across as being ‘honey-sweet’ when, in actual fact, it is more of a ‘bee sting’.
However, for the past few years, following the growth in the crimes and attacks committed all around the world in the name of Islam, meaning by Islam, the landscape has undergone a transformation and the ideological weather conditions have changed. The situation has thus experienced an upshift.
The Three Transformations
The first transformation concerns the mentality of our native French workfolk, but not that of the leftist bourgeois classes, who have remained protected and preserved. As part of their daily lives, they have become aware of the disadvantages of immigration and Islamisation. The rise in the National Front’s voting figures and the success of ‘populist’ parties (‘popular’ would be more accurate) in other European countries confirm this trend. We are thus witnessing, in a mechanical fashion, an increase in both protests and resistance to these phenomena, which are reflected in working class milieus in the form of an ‘Islamophobia’ that is unknown to well-off bourgeois classes. The latter have now embraced the Left and do not feel threatened (for the time being at least), despising native workers, who are seen as a miscellany of proletarians that are bound to be ‘racist’.
The second transformation concerns Islam itself which, particularly in Europe, is moving on from its Dar al-Sulh (time of truce) phase to the Dar al-Harb (time of war) stage, gradually desisting any precautions as it asserts its presence and prospers demographically. The recent Islamic attacks languidly condemned or implicitly approved by the complex ‘Muslim community’ clearly demonstrate that, despite all the journalistic and political denial, the war has actually already begun. Terrorism and urban riots are its two pillars. We have not seen anything yet... This topic will be covered in a later chapter.
