Understanding Islam, page 11
The Ball of the Barbarians
Contrary to the lies of the State, which are comparable to those of former Soviet powers who falsified both history and facts, Islam has never actually been part of the history of France. Nothing could be further from the truth than the claim that it has, whether before or after 1789. The hostility of Islam to European values, both Christian and secular, is a consistent and fundamental historical fact. Islam’s universalist will of conquest (and revenge) is an objective observation, as is the ideological collusion between Islam and Nazism, the source of which stretches beyond their common anti-Judaism. The criminalisation of ‘Islamophobia’ at the hands of our jurisprudence is a powerful signal of submission (and permission) transmitted to the agents behind our country’s Islamisation. In an interview between Bruno Le Maire and Pascal Bruckner (‘Barbarism has reached France’, Le Figaro, 04/08/2014), the latter declared: ‘On July the 27th, at the Place de la République, the demonstrators conducted their street prayers with their faces to the ground, which sends a very clear message: wherever Muslims are present is the land of Islam [...] The moment we reaffirm our national identity, we are accused of being racists.. The word ‘Islamophobia’ has become a means of equating any criticism of Islam to racism. However, no one makes any mention of Christianophobia.’ Interesting remarks. He was referring to those Christians who have been deported and massacred by our beloved Muslims in Iraq and Syria, not to mention the desecration of cemeteries and churches in France and the planned terrorist attacks against places of Catholic worship which were foiled.
Similarly to many other spheres discussed elsewhere in this book, the Islamic invasion achieved on this level is once again carried out as much through the Muslim wheeling flank present in France as through the actions of the French authorities themselves, who act in perfect collaboration with Islam. Bossuet, Montaigne, Montesquieu, Voltaire and Chateaubriand have all denounced Islam’s barbarism and ideology in texts that would leave today’s collaborating politicians, judges and journalists (the three powers that remain in partnership) tense and pale. On the other hand, the ideologists who have praised Islam more than anyone else were none other than the Nazis. It seems that there is an issue here which the Marxist supporters of Islamisation have failed to resolve, although the solution’s quite simple... Why? Because all barbarians flock together.
Chapter III: Islamisation, Its Collaborators and the Resisters
As with any outbreak of confrontation or war, divisions have surfaced along partition lines that stem from vague problems, not to mention the presence of those warriors who, owing to their origin and intention to bring down both France and Europe, are perfectly at ease in the roles they play in support of the invaders and occupiers. The analogy with the Occupation period (1940–1945) is quite striking, although the current situation is far more serious. Once again, the French masses suffer but remain irresolute, just as they were back then.
The Collaborators and the Resisters: A Nebulous Landscape
The transcurrent presence of those who collaborate with Islamisation and the ones who resist it depicts a highly diverse landscape. Let us now attempt to categorise them. The collaborators can be divided into three groups:
1) The Left-oriented oligarchy, whether political, mediatic, judicial, associative or of any other type, an oligarchy that is either part of the Socialist Party (PS) or revolves around it and is influenced by Trotskyist Marxism, which considers Muslim immigrants to be a new kind of exploited proletarians. Its cosmopolitan internationalism is combined with a ‘racist’ vulgate and especially with an abhorrence of deep-rooted French and European traditions — Christian ones in particular. The destruction of the French and European identity is its obsession. In addition, it exhibits a pent-up fascination for the type of totalitarianism that is proper to Islam, as well as for the latter’s ‘anti-Zionism’. The insurmountable contradiction that characterises this political Left, which is pro-Islamic by ‘antiracism’ and as a result of its will to destroy, through immigration, both our country’s ethnic foundation and that of Europe, lies of course in the fact that all the (political and social) requirements of Islam are completely incompatible with its self-declared ‘progressiveness’.
2) The anti-Semitic neo-Nazi circles, whether folkloric or intellectual. Islam’s structural anti-Judaism and its synoptic discourse aimed against ‘Americano-Zionism’ have led them to believe that Islam is their ally. The defence of the European identity is not to their taste (or kept secondary). Their hatred of Jews and of a supposedly Jew-infested satanic America accounts for their love of Islam and their occasional flirtations with jihadists.
3) The useful idiots, who tend to belong to the political Right and include Nathalie Koscuisko-Morizet and Alain Juppé, among many others. They live inside the bubble of the great humanitarian and protected bourgeoisie, taking no notice whatsoever of the situation of real, ordinary people in the face of mass immigration and Islamisation. Some naive Catholic milieus are also part of this category, remaining obsessed with the ‘love of one’s neighbour’ and the Pope’s (irresponsible and erroneous) sermons on welcoming Islam in Europe, while combining their obsessions with acts of Christian charity towards those unfortunate and persecuted migrants. The French bishops follow suit, in a display of complete obedience.
Let us now move on to the resisters, who are also highly diverse and divided.
1) The Identitarian milieus, some of which are affiliated with the Front National (National Front). Their internal rivalries are complex. They all fight against Islamisation and exhibit varying degrees of radicalism and understanding of the relevant phenomena.
2) Some secular circles, comprising such Left-oriented and dissident intellectuals as Bruckner, Finkielkraut, Zemmour, etc., who have refused to submit to the system imposed by the prevailing ideology.
3) Entire factions of the Jewish community, whose members have become aware of how much of a threat Islamisation is to them following the recent and deadly anti-Semitic events. They find themselves in conflict with another part of the Jewish community, one that has embraced the stance of a calculating denunciation of ‘Islamophobia’.
4) A number of Muslim men and women (a minority in their community) who fear the Islamisation of Europe, especially women who reject the treatment that Islam inflicts upon them.
It is obvious that the majority of middle and lower class French natives are opposed to both Islamisation and the invasive immigration which they are being subjected to. However, they have no say in this matter and simply watch the events unfold. An ever growing number of people belonging to our working classes now choose to vote for the FN (National Front), but the latter has adopted an ambiguous position when focusing on the utopia of ‘assimilation’, a utopia which is now demographically impossible.
Collaboration, a French Disease
A rather humorous comparison can be made between the submission of certain elites to Nazism and Communism at one point and their subservience to the Islamic invaders nowadays. These elites, whether political, mediatic, intellectual, judicial, cultural or other, yield to the use of force and deny their very convictions due to a mixture of fear, cowardice and opportunism. Their ‘views’ are of a variable geometry, which is a frequent phenomenon in the history of France: at the end of the First Empire, during the period of the so-called Hundred Days (1815), we witnessed these same political, military and judicial elites betray Napoleon in favour of Louis XVIII, then switch sides again to support the Emperor, only to betray him after Waterloo and side with the Bourbons, before finally turning their backs on the latter once they were overthrown. Collaboration with the enemy and regular changes of allegiance have unfortunately been endemic to the history of France since the days of Joan of Arc, who had to contend as much with the invaders as with their French allies.
The 1939–1945 period saw officers, soldiers, judges, police officers and people of all walks of life switch sides like weathervanes, depending on the power relations. The Communist Party is a good example of this: first pro-Nazi then anti-Nazi, its leader, Maurice Thorez, deserted France and vanished into the USSR. As acknowledged by De Gaulle himself, the members of the Resistance were truly a minority in France, the majority opting either for collaboration or inaction. Both Vichy government staff and the members of our collaborationist or militia movements were mostly made up of people belonging to the radical-socialist and socialist spheres and to the communist Left, which stemmed from the Popular Front (Front Populaire) and whose representatives voted in favour of granting Marshal Petain full powers.
This fondness for totalitarian regimes, whether Communist, Nazi or Islamic, seems akin to a virus plaguing the French mentality. In recent history, it is the political Left that seems most afflicted with it. A socio-historical study should be conducted on the issue.
Islamophilia: An Incredible Tolerance
What is extraordinary to behold is how Western societies, all of which are rooted in the glorification of Human Rights, anti-racism, anti-xenophobia, non-violence, gender equality and the adulation of the ‘Republic’ and ‘secularism’ (which is especially true of France), tolerate an ideology / religion that is miles away from such principles and look upon it with wistful eyes.
One thus detects the same sophistic mechanism as with Communism: the crimes of Stalinism have done little to undermine the nobleness of the communist vision. In this case, one thinks to oneself that ‘the crimes of fanatical Islamism bear no connection to noble Islam’, a kind of reasoning that falls a little short. The West regards Islam in the same way it once looked upon Communism: its crimes are deemed not to be intrinsic to it, but accidental, which is a fatal error of judgment.
Faced with the presence of Islam, however, a religion that has always borne the virus of fanaticism within itself, Western democracies exert themselves to believe and convince people that there are actually two Islams: a genuine, moderate and pleasant Islam and an evil and false one. In actual fact, it’s all but a matter of degree on the scale of a single worldview. The future historians who will undertake to analyse the 21st century will be amazed to determine that although the ideology of Human Rights chose to fight Communism and Nazism, it willingly surrendered itself to Islam’s kiss of death. The reality of the matter is that this contradiction is the result of a schizophrenic complex: an embodiment of Dogmatism, the anti-racist ideology prohibits any and all resistance to Islamisation, a resistance that is implicitly equated with anti-Arab and anti-immigrant racism, etc. The notion of ‘Islamophobia’, this ideological monster, plays a key role in this respect.
Sanctioned by the entire political class, the tort of Islamophobia, a neologism coined during the 1990s, constitutes a fantastic gift bestowed upon the Islamic conquering force, since it virtually bans those being conquered from protesting against their conquerors’ actions. We thus witness the secular Republic prosecuting these blasphemies and complying with Koranic, religious law. The criticism of any religion, including Christianity, of course, as well as Judaism, is perfectly admissible. There are no criminal offences that relate to Christianophobia; the word itself does not even exist officially. Once again, the French republican, substantive and secular law is denied, as freedom of expression is flouted further. Consequently, those who would dare criticise both Islam and the Muslims find themselves burdened with the constant threat of prosecution and exclusion, which in turn causes them to resort to self-censorship, forcing them to considerably limit such criticism.
Another incredible example of how the law is being distorted (a further sign of the obscuration and blurring of the rule of law) lies in the act of equating Islamophobia with anti-Semitism and racism. Islam is regarded as a race by a Republic that does not otherwise acknowledge races, while Islam itself denies being the religion of a particular racial group, yet loudly asserts its Arabian inspiration. But this also generates an enormous mental lapse: by creating a parallel between Islamophobia and racism, the ‘Republican’ ideology (which is running out of steam) implicitly recognises that Islam is promoted by different races and remains the latter’s objective expression. This also constitutes an implicit acknowledgement of the fact that we are indeed falling prey to an underground colonisation process at the hands of other peoples, one that we are forbidden to oppose and whose existence this very ideology explicitly denies. A historically unprecedented situation.
Islam thus benefits from an exorbitant privilege not only in the public sphere but also in the legal domain. It is the only religion (and ideology) which one is forbidden to attack. One is allowed to vilify, ridicule, challenge, refute and mock Marxists, liberals, Catholics (more than anyone else!), Evangelists, Hasidic Jews, Hindus and countless others, but not Muslims and Islam. Islam enjoys a kind of mental extraterritoriality, which is more than Muslims could have ever wished for. We are presenting them with our severed hands and tongues on a silver platter. Our native censors have integrated the very principles of Islam into their frightened brains (meaning that they have undergone low intensity Islamisation or have become pre-Islamised): Islam is not subject to criticism or ridicule, but is to be respected and praised everywhere and at all times. All performances of Voltaire’s theatrical piece Mahomet are prohibited in the repertoire of the Comédie-Française.
The phrase ‘one must neither stigmatise Islam, nor the Muslims’ (a catchall phrase that is becoming increasingly fashionable) is now part of the jargon of journalists and politicians. It implies that the conquerors are the ones being persecuted. This is precisely what the Islamic strategy was hoping for, a strategy that always recommends delegitimising the opponent and portraying oneself as a victim whenever encountering resistance. It is indeed the case that talking about the Islamisation of France, which is an objective fact, is now considered synonymous with making aggressive statements. What an Orwellian inversion of meanings!
On this level, it is an outstanding moral victory that Muslim expansionism has achieved, a victory without the necessity of combat. Implicitly, Islamising our country is becoming a right and opposing it both a criminal act and a sin. One cannot help but draw a disturbing parallel between the current situation and the collaboration of the Vichy regime, whose units obviously undertook to punish every criticism targeting the invaders. At that time, of course, the collaboration went hand in hand with a forced submission to military force. In this case, however, what we are facing is voluntary submission, a unique event in the history of France and Europe.
Islamo-Leftism
From the extreme-Left perspective (the source of over 50% of all executives and politicians in the PS / Socialist Party) Islam is equated with the religion of the oppressed, thus replacing Marxism as the secular religion of the proletarians. Following the same approach that once drove the petty-bourgeois leftists to espouse proletarianism and express solidarity with ‘exploited workers’ during the 1960s and 1970s, today’s leftist petty-bourgeoisie seeks to embrace the religion of the allegedly oppressed, meaning that of the immigrants. This allows them, incidentally, to find in Islam all that is necessary to submerge and destroy indigenous European cultures, in harmony with Trotskyist nihilism. Islam has replaced the old ‘proletarian internationalism’ promoted by those leftists’ elders.
In addition, this Islamo-leftism (of which the Trotskyist NPA is an example) harbours the feeling of continuing its anti-racist struggle when supporting and legitimising the Islamic conquest. The resulting ideological contradictions and confusion are, however, truly staggering: how on earth have these advocates of secularity, these atheistic and anticlerical Marxists denouncing religion as ‘the opium of the people’, come to defend the religion that displays the sharpest intolerance towards secularism itself, a religion that is more theocratic than any other? The main reason for this development is that the Trotskyist mentality, which is marked by nihilism as well as by its hatred of European identities, actually views Islam as a good means by which to disfigure and destroy Europe. Another unspoken reason (and one that is reminiscent of the attitude held by some Right-wing Islamophiles) is that Islam is fundamentally anti-democratic, authoritarian and statist, perhaps even prone to totalitarianism, just like the Marxists themselves.
By the late 1960s, the extreme-Left was already supporting the Palestinian Fatah (which, nonetheless, was an Arab nationalist movement devoid of Islamist tendencies). Nowadays, Islamophilic leftists support the Palestinians, whose Hamas and [TN: Lebanese] Hezbollah movements are no longer rooted in nationalism, but Islamism. This is a factor that accentuates Islamophilia, not to mention the impact of those repressed anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic impulses that are growing increasingly active in leftist-Marxist circles. Mélenchon’s silence in relation to all the Islamic atrocities is very significant.
Femen, a group of pseudo-feminist provocateurs (who do they get their funds from anyway?), has desecrated yet another church, namely that of La Madeleine in Paris (the Church of Notre Dame having been the first), by mimicking, right in front of the altar, the topless abortion of the Virgin Mary, using a calf liver. Just like in other acts of provocation targeting Catholic locations, which are always easy and defenceless targets, the authorities turn a blind eye. Complete impunity18 . What would happen if they pulled such stunts in a mosque? Although ‘atheistic’, they somehow lack the necessary courage or desire to do so, obviously. If they did, this would trigger inflamed condemnations, scandals, a general public outcry, arrests and trials: they would be found guilty of the cardinal sin of Islamophobia.
