France rebuffs Israeli calls to blacklist Hizbullah

For Israel, dancing with the French is an utter waste of time. That "shitty little country" -- France -- is as much an enemy as Iran or Saudi Arabia. The difference being that the Muslim states are quite open and honest about their aim of exterminating Israel while the preening poodles try to hide their objectives behind the curtain of international diplomacy.

The real question is why the 600,000 Jews in France have not yet made aliyah. Move to Israel; move to America; move to Australia. Take your enterprise, your professional skills, your talents, your earning power elsewhere. Leave France to its future in Zones 93, 94, and 95.

If "Eurabia" (which must come out in all the languges of Europe, including French, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, Polish, Czech, Hungaria, Serbian, all the way down to teeny-tiny Romansh and Aromanian, or Vlachs) has a villainness, more Cruella Deville than Laetitia Casta as Marianne, that villainness is France. The French keep thinking that "they know the Arabs" and "they understand Islam."

Correction. They did know Islam. Some of the very best scholars of Islam, of Jihad (and implicitly, of dhimmitude) were French or, as in the case of the Lebanese Antoine Fattal, French-speaking. Aramand Abel, Charles Emmanuel Dufourcq, Clement Huart, Georges Vajda, Charles Bousquet, Evariste Levi-Provencal, and so many others -- not to mention the outspoken Andre Servier -- wrote in French and understood Islam perfectly.

The age of appeasement -- appeasement of the North African and other Arab states, in order to curry favor so that friends of the elites (and of course the French ruling class itself) could "recycle petrodollars" as this mass bribery was demurely called. There was no need to appease, in the slightest. The Arabs had to pay for services; of course they were going to hire Western companies, for Western companies were the only ones able to perform up to snuff. So this "recycling petro-dollars" really came down to getting contracts for oneself, and one's friends. Think of that crook Chirac, with his expensive call-girl tastes, and his "Kniphausen Hawk" (the bejewelled falcon he and some Bouygues-like contractor each received some thirty years ago).

That was in foreign policy: adopt the Arab view and win petrodollars for family and friends. In domestic policy, the truly insane changes which Giscard d'Estaing permitted, by which maghrebins, already exhibiting mass criminality, could bring their "family" members (and maghrebin families gave new meaning, with their numerous wives and limitless numbers of children, to the phrase "extended family"), could bring those families in. The French, like the Germans, failed to consult their real experts -- Dufourcq was still alive, and Jacques Soustelle also knew a thing or two about Islam from his stay in Algeria, but was apparently not to be consulted because of the terrible taint of his supposed "right-wing" views (i.e., he understood Islam, and actually supported the French civilizing presence in Algeria -- which forever caused him, a profound and sympathetic student of pre-Columbian Mexico -- to be depicted as some kind of European imperialist, when he was nothing of the kind). Levi-Provencal, Huart and Fagnan had been dead for many decades; Bousquet lived on, Servier's one book was never republished after the early 1920s; the Muslim Arabs were not taken seriously, or Islam seen as anything other than a "bulwark" against Communism, until the OPEC bonanza appeared, the mosque-and-madrasa building spree was set off.

In the late 1960s, just at the time of the Six-Day War, in fact, but before the OPEC bonanza,, the floodgates of Muslim migration had already been opened, mainly in France and in Germany. In Germany (Germans assumed that the "gastarbeiter" would of course leave, because they were comfortably called "guest-workers" -- but guess what? Those guests did not. And then the Germans made another assumption, whichy was that they were letting in "secular Turks" and these already-"secular" Turks would, in Germany, only become more, not less, secular with each passing generation. Both assumptions were dead wrong; Islam is a permanent force, and Muslims taken outside their own context tend to rely more and more on Islam, and become more, not less attached to Islam. And in any case, even there there are exceptions to this rule (and some do abandon Islam altogether) the poor Infidels have no way of knowing which are truly now "secular" and which are either hiding their views, in order to avoid Infidel scrutiny, or which are at present "moderate" in their Islam but could, for any and all reasons, suddenly be set off on an "immoderate" course. There are simply too many examples of semmingly moderate, "integrated" Mulsims in the West turning out to be quite otherwise.

When one cow out of ten thousand proves to be a carrier of Mad Cow disease, all hell breaks loose, and there are quarantines and embargoes, and the killing even of millions of sheep and cattle. But Muslim immigrants, of whom not 1 out of 10,000, but 1 out of 5, or 1 out of 2, or perhaps 8 out of 10, support Jihad by any means necessary, enter the Lands of the Infidels, nothing is done -- because of those who seem to be, outwawrdly, "moderate," and whom we do not wish to appear to be unfriendly towards. But as with Mad Cow Disease, immigration policies all over the Western world need to be based on likelihoods, on probabilities. If Islam teaches Believers that their sole loyalty must be to Islam and to fellow Muslims, why should Infidel governments base their policies on the hope, the wish, the dream, that Muslims do not really believe in the tenets of Islam? Isn't this peculiar? Isn't it, shouldn't it be, a subject of open discussion? We are talking about the survival of our entire civilization, of our art, our science, our political freedoms, and of our own physical security, and that of our descendants. Isn't that worth discussing what Islam is all about, even if it happens to offend, or at least we are told that it offends by CAIR and its ilk? Why such inhibitions? Has the cat got everyone's tongue? Why do we hem and haw like a blushing maiden, or the equally embarrassed young farm-boy who has asked her out on a first date.

France now has two kinds of "experts" on Islam. It has those who have been parroting the Arab line (and why not? The Arabs keep telling them it is true, and the Arabs wouldn't lie, would they?) that if Israel is pressured, and essentialy thrown to the wolves, all manner of things shall be well. The great "Deux Rives" experiment, in which 1350 years of history are thown into that Mediterranean that everyone now likes to talk and write, in a bastardized Braudelian fashion, will continue. The Muislims in France will continue to be "integrated" in an ever more expensive, and demeaning (to the French, and to what French civilization means) experiment that, with a handful of exceptions, will not work. And the outbreeding by the Muslims will continue, so that this time next decade, Muslims will be not 10% but 20% of the French population. The misguidede -- Olivier Roy and Gilles "Never Right" Kepel both come to mind -- still are listened to with respect, when they have clearly been wrong, and continue to be wrong. But there are others. There is Anne-Marie Delcambre, whose slim "L'Islam des interdits" is uncompromisingly clear-headed. There is Jean-Paul Charney, whose "Principes de strategie arabe" is a big book to Delcambre's slim one. There is, at Le Figaro, Yvan Rioufol. There is Alexandre del Valle, whom the islamisant editors of Le Monde (Eric Rouleau, who for decades has been a promoter and defender of Islam, first at Le Monde, and then as a French diplomat, has been one of the most damaging of domestic quislings) have tried to blacken. There is the journalist Jean-Pierre Peroncel-Hugoz, who twenty years ago wrote "Le radeau de Mahomet," available in English as "The Raft of Mohammad," a book that deserves re-printing (after it appeared, Le Monde's editors quickly re-assigned Peroncel-Hugoz to another department; from their point of view, he was dangerously well-informed and acute).

One senses that the days of the crook Chirac and the various poseurs, from Dominique de Villepin, diplomat and poetaster (the ghost of St. John Perse need not be concerned), to the editors at Le Monde (why no French equivalent to littlegreenfootballs, to bring Le Monde editors low?), are coming to an end. One hopes that that end comes quickly -- so that some common-sense about Islam, and its effect on those who listen to its teachings (as opposed to those who ignore its teachings) -- can be well-understood by the heedless, and frightened, and confused, French ruling classes who really have to stop taking such pleasure in anti-Americanism. It is not the Americans who everywhere in France are making life hell for the natives. And this is understood by the French voters. They do not want to vote for Le Pen. Sarkozy, if he gives up this "integration" idea -- he has come far, but not nearly far enough -- may do. Or someone else.

It might be fun for some French people currently resident in the United States to do something amusingly dramatic. Why not, boys and girls, coopains et copines, set up a Government-in-Exile in New York, but not just for the hell of it; rather, to make a point. And that point is that the forces of anti-Americanism and antisemitism are present in Occupied France today (occupied by the spirit, and the funds, and the rewriting of history, all connected to the "Eurabian" enterprise). What better way to shame some in France -- or even some of the loyal diplomats, nary a J. J. Jusserand among them, who parrot the DdeV line from their swank embassy in Washington?

What a romantic thought. Perhaps, not only a Brazzaville Declaration, but a new Ecole Libre des Hautes Etudes (by the way, Clement Huart, the scholar of Islam mentioned above, was once the director of the Ecole des Hautes Etudes). Insteady of Koyre, Jakobson, Levi-Strauss, Maritain, or perhaps Henri Focillon getting out of his sick-bed to deliver a talk (and look, Breton and Duchamp have shown up for this talk on medieval art), all sorts of French people, disgused with Chirac et Cie., can make this their base. No, it would constitute an endorsement of the American government, or the American people, ses moeurs et ses coutumes. No one is asking for that. But it would be a way of emphasising the horrific pensee unique of France today, of how France is now occupied by those willing to rewrite the history of France and of Europe, the venal or stupid promoters of a false and dangerous deux-rivisme, the pathologically anti-American and antisemitic -- in other words, the same currents that were so promoted by Vichy, and behind Vichy, the Germans, are today what is promoted by the French ruling classes in the media and the government, and behind those ruling classes, the Muslim Arabs, in Occupied France and outside it.

Such an effort for Free France, or the Free-thinking French, will require is intelligence, humor, and flair. As the slogan says, a civilization is a terrible thing to waste. So -- vas-y, someone. Go get 'em.

I was walking one night down a street in a ruined city in one of those small Third World countries I so often find myself in-- for me a way of life and employment opportunity, but for others destruction, despair, and death. The moon was up, lighting the smoke in the air, making a cosmetic haze across the city-scape. It is pretty, this pastel coloring of war over a city. I looked across to my right, to a bomb crater filled with garbage and rubble, and there was a pack of dogs rooting for food. They were bony and flea-bitten and mangey. They were also a pack, a dangerous thing when one is alone in the night. Something caught their attention and happily, it wasn't me. The dog-pack ran off across the trash and up the crater slope. I laughed!

Trotting behind the pack was a sparkling white poodle with a rhinestone collar. Fifi was having some real trouble keeping up with her new-found friends, though she was trying very hard. The pack probably found something for dinner. I think.

Oh, Fifi. But still I had to laugh.

HUgh wrote
(why no French equivalent to littlegreenfootballs, to bring Le Monde editors low?),
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/

Erik has been on a crusade for years debunking "la maladie des francais" and is passionate . He even infiltrates the anti american french demos and reports back on his web site.

The grey-eyed man of destiny's descendant's fable properly disturbs. And the reference to Erik by "George" was not new to me, but prompted a return visit to Erik's website. I like his invocation of Josef Pieper. And a day or two ago, he had on his website a quote from Bashir Gemayel (who used the term "dhimmitude" soon after Bat Ye'or coined it, in a speech on the day he was killed):

“Europe and many other States are not able to digest the Christian presence in this corner of the world, because it is a stumbling-block to most of their ambitions in this area... The Americans and the West have not yet assimilated the fact that we, the Christians of the Orient, represent their last line of defense against a return to the dark ages, against terror and blind fundamentalism, against those who seek to annihilate all the values of civilization and of their culture... Today, they want to ‘sell us down the river’ for a barrel of oil!”...

These two factors led Bashir to condemn the West in these words : “The West, today, is showing signs of decadence in its policies, in its morals, in its economy.”

In his tirade, Bashir did not omit France, and he frankly blamed it for the servile attitude of its former Foreign Minister, Louis de Guiringaud. “Periodically, we were fighting in self-defense here while De Guiringaud and Mondale were criticizing us for standing firm and calling us all sorts of names, alleging that we were a band of outlaws who deserved to be punished...”

Yet, in spite of all this, Bashir reaffirmed Lebanon’s affiliation to the Western democracies : “We are a part of the Free World”.

At Taif, of course, David Satterfield of the U.S. State Department beamed as the Lebanese Christians were forced to sign an "agreement" (diktat, really) by which Lebanon, for the first time, had to put into its constitution a clause declaring the country an "Arab" state -- a terrible concession for the Arabic-speaking non-Arabs for whom the mountains of Lebanon (thus: Mont Liban) had been a refuge and a redoubt.

Gemayel could not say openly what Bishop Moubarac could say in 1947, that the Lebanese Christians and the Jews in Israel were both targets; Gemayel calls the "Christians of the Orient represent their [the West's] last line of defenese" when he should have written "the Christians and Jews of the Orient." But considering the times in which he lived, his reticence at this point was understandable.

A sample of ERIK's ebbulient passionate writing.
Love it!

Phony toughs
Faux durs

The French play the tough guy and generously insult Christians who peacefully practice their religion (which is logical given that the cowardly French know very well that they risk nothing by doing so), but they submit like sacrificial lambs as soon as they might be required to denounce the fascist rise of the Islam cult of death. (which is logical because those people are capable of slashing their throats in the middle of the street Van Gogh style, burning their cars Paris suburb style, kidnapping their news reporters, and even crashing an airplane into one of their buildings).