Dhimmitude on the march in France

Check Voltaire's grave for signs of spinning.

As is my stomach. Whenever the west hits a real trough of dhimmitude you think that it cannot get any worse. But politicians always have new methods of finding deeper ones. So much for secular France!!

Who is the member of Parliment and does this stand a chance of becoming law?

I am aware of the link, but I don't speak French

The site Hexagonews is a good source of information for the resistance against Islam in France . It's in English...

Dear Mr. Ape Pig,

The name of the member of parliament who submitted this bill is Jean Marc ROUBAUD. Does the bill have a chance of succeeding? It's too early to tell...but this bill has been submitted by a member of the large-majority UMP party, the party of Jacques Chirac, France's Dhimmi-in-Chief. This bill is a lot like similar "protection of religion" bills that came up in the UK.

Thanks to both amalienborg and Russell.

Here's hoping common sense prevails and this bill goes no where.

Everytime I read something like this it makes me wish I had visted France when it was still France.

Its not all doom and gloom in France. Veronique Besse, one of the Members of Parliament for the Vendée has received one of our tracts.

Her reply:

I have received your documentation about the Islamisation of France

Know that I share your point of view, and like yourself, do not wish that France disappear and that its values are destroyed.

You can count on my determination and my convictions to defend the country.

Cordialy

V.Besse

http://www.france-echos.com/actualite.php?cle=8674

That Jean Marc Roubaud, the MP, who proposed the above law on blasphemy is outrageous, but he has chosen his side.

More than one politician have made their feelings on Islam quite clear and the the march towards dhimmitude is by no means certain.

A very politically incorrect poll on multiculturalism will make sobering reading for collaborators such as Jean Marc Roubaud UMP ( Chirac's ahem Right Wing party), who may realize he doesn't quite have his finger on the pulse of the nation.

http://www.expression-publique.com/expression-publique/resultat.php?adresse=multicult

Some of the results are as follows:

76% believe that Muslims make little effort to integrate

68 % believe asians make great attempts to integrate

51 % are against insisting on Slavery and Colonies in history classes

83% are against Sarkozy's plan to use state money to build mosques

79 % believe muslims appply their religion's rules before those of the state.

74% believe that muslims feels closer to muslims of other nations than to a french person

51% believe that it is difficult for a muslim to abandon his faith, whilst living in France

65 % believe muslims are responsable for the problems they have in France

I could go on, but I think its clear that, for many people, with far less knowledge about Islam than many visiting this site, they know instinctively that Islam and democracy cannot coexist.

Those who frequently accuse the French of anti semitism will be relieved to know that 87 % of those asked are favourable to existence of the State of Israel.

80 % of those asked agreed that the Mohamed cartoons should be published.

I somehow doubt that these statistics would be very different in the USA.

30 years of Eurabian Dhimmitude at all levels of society has not dented the instinctive infidel skepticism with regards to Islam.

Our leaders do not represent us, and this is becoming clearer every day.

Roll on the riots. With every car burnt and every kidnapped infidel that's many more votes for courageous politicians such as Philippe de Villiers, and yet another nail in the political coffin for those failed socialists who dreamed of melting European civilization down into a pot of decrepit dhimmitude.

Jean Marc ROUBAUD is the bill's sponsor. By default we assume him to be a leftist, but I would love to know the truth. Is this would be tyrant of the left, the right, or the middle?

He's a worm, another despicable enabler of the Muslim Jihad against free speech about their phony baloney prophet, his awful book and the awful cult of personality known as Islam. Islam rises and falls on the life of the con artist Muhammad who the faithful call the perfect man, whose perfect life must be emulated. Whose perfect life is worthy of emulation by all mankind in all times and all places. Needless to say a growing number of Westerners have the opposite opinion of this loathsome man and the Muhammadans want this banned from public speech

This bill and others like it appear to me to be attempts at civilizational suicide on the part of politicians.

If mere cartoons defaming religion (read Islam) are not allowed, then what about the Koran, which defames all religions except Islam? The Koran has been put on trial before (in India), but it wasn't banned.

What will happen if religion is given a special exemption? I'm not sure, but people might start using religion to shield them when they attack other religions. (If I am a member of religion X, then I can attack all other religions with impunity claiming that my views are part religion X). Indeed, any atheist could simply make up a religion X and say that religion X contains a set of beliefs that allows him to attack other religions. Likewise, people could use religion as a shield when they criticize or lampoon anything else in society. Absurd scenarios such as these, which are not difficult to imagine, only show why being able to freely attack religions is important and should not be compromised.

I have visited France several times, and I'm glad I did.

Unfortunately, I think France has probably already passed the point of no return.

"Those who frequently accuse the French of anti semitism will be relieved to know that 87 % of those asked are favourable to existence of the State of Israel."--Sebastien

Keeping in mind that a large part of that remaining 13% would be Muslims.

Many thanks to Sebastian and all French, British and Europeans who post here. Right thinking Americans are very concerned about the Islamic invasion & subversion of your continent. Europe is the ancestral homeland of most Americans, Canadians and even a greater percentage of Australians and New Zealanders. These four immigrant nations have Muhammadan problems but Europe has more due to proximity to Arab nations. You decided to entwine your fate with them, now the chickens come home to roost in their no-go neighborhoods, rapes of non Muslims, riots, automobile torching, demands to change your free speech laws

You shall call his name Ishmael; because The Lord has given heed to your affliction. He shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen." (Genesis 16:11-12 RSV

Russel. Being in the same party as Jacques Chirac doesn't mean squat. They fight like cats and dogs in there.

In today's paper they are reviewing book called 'The President's Tragedy'

Some choice quotes:

Sarkozy on Chirac "We might believe that Chirac is very stupid and kind, in fact he he very smart and very unkind"

Chirac on Sarkozy " He is mad, I'm not one to bear a grudge ... but really, this is too much"

Villepin on Chirac "The president cannot get rid of me..I know too many things. Outside his system I would be a veritable time bomb"

These people are all in the same party

If mere cartoons defaming religion (read Islam) are not allowed, then what about the Koran, which defames all religions except Islam?

What has logic to do with any of this?

The "multiculturalists" are not laying out a logical position but (even if not fully consciously) siding with forces that threaten their own society, because they are deficient in what the Romans called pietas - i.e., that feeling of gratitude for the conditions that have made their own being possible in the first place and which in all healthy societies is a recognized part of morality:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition4.htm

See Section 2: The Law of Special Beneficence

Not to say that General Beneficence (as Robert points out, not recognized anywhere in Islam) is not important, but no good man could not recognize the particular duties he owes either.

Sebastien,

I noted this in your earlier post:

83% are against Sarkozy's plan to use state money to build mosques

Use state money for what! So what is Sarkozy smoking?

What's the thinking - that if the state pays the state can exercise some control? Or what?

If so it seems to me this is like the EU/US view that if they do not pay jizya to the "Palestinians" someone else will, and that someone else will "therefore" have more "influence". Such thinking seems very muddled to me.

Yojimbo this is what I remember verbatim from a TV broadcast with Sarkozy

"Islam is now part of France and these are the facts...we must encourage this islam to be a French islam and not an islam funded by the fanatics abroad"

For someone not aquainted with the concepts of the Umma, jihad and dhimmitude, this can be a very persuasive argument

Sarkozy is has not shown any sign that he doubts that a French islam can exist and that the french muslims will follow french law.

When it came to the veil issue he suggested that girls at school could wear some kind of neck scarf that would symbolically cover the nape of the neck and some of the hair.

Sarkozy is a replica of Tony Blair. Very passionate about issues for about 30 seconds before moving on.

Unless he publicly pronounces against the islamisation of France like Philippe de Villiers, he will certainly not provide a solution.

Thank you. What I'd feared. The comparison to Tony Blair sounds apt, too.

It's amazing that the muslims (and their Dhimmis) are now asking for laws against slandering religious beliefs. This is from a religious establishment that every Friday from every mosque around the world, mocks and ridicules idolatory and polytheism, and at least some of them, calling for the murder of idol worshippers. This from a religious establishment that silently watched, even encouraged the destruction of the Bamian Buddhas, and countless sculptures and temples in Bangladesh, Pakistan and India!

One hopes that Le Pen will either die soon, or decide to retire, claiming ill health, claiming anything he wants. Could a semblance of a sense of duty, realizing that he is a disreputable character, and will remain so for many who otherwise would love to vote in favor of halting and reversing the Muslim expansion into France, and cannot bring themselves to forgive or forget (and why should they?) his statements and behavior that reveal an obvious antisemitism and anti-Americanism (in Europe, they often go together). Besides, if one is in the business of this highfalutin' Defending the West stuff, shouldn't one be a cultivated embodiment of that West one is purporting to defend? Just an eensy-weensy bit? Le Pen is trogolodytic. Philippe de Villiers has come a long way in the last few decades. There are French noblemen who will not sing the Marseillaise, and you know why. Philippe de Villiers is not now, if he ever was, among them. The disgraceful attempt to push him out of the march of protest in memory of Ilan Halimi was not covered outside of France. Instead of leaving, he marched not in the front, but in the middle, not with the bigwigs, and he was warmly received. They knew. And he knew. And so do many others.

A united vote to declare a halt to this nightmare, inflicted on France by Chirac, by Villepin, by Giscard d'Estaing, by Olivier Roy and Gilles Kepel and other fakes who replaced the real experts on Islam who either died or retired by the 1970s, such as Dufourcq, leaving France a place where "Islam cannot be criticized" as the philosopher Jacques Ellul lamented. Oh, there are even some fuddy-duddy academic holdouts, such as the University of Aix-en-Provence, where the Department of Islamic Studies is practically the Vendee, because the professors there actually have studied Islam,and are not the sociologists/apologists of the Roy/Kepel variety that have done such damage in their unmerited positions of influence and false authority.

As for Segalene, une femme est une femme, mais un caporal....

Thanks Hugh for pointing out that Philippe de Villiers rejoined the march. Despite this he is still suing SOS-Racisme for assault.

Should anyone here understand a little French and have a spare 20 minutes. Here is an interesting little TV debate between the historian Max Gallo and the French Arab Athlete Djamel Bouras

http://voxgalliae.blogspot.com/2006/03/djamel-bouras-vs-max-gallo.html

Jean Marc ROUBAUD is the bill's sponsor. By default we assume him to be a leftist, but I would love to know the truth. Is this would be tyrant of the left, the right, or the middle?

[...]

Posted by: dennisw at March 14, 2006 09:56 AM

dennisw:

As a member of Chirac's party, I believe that he's centre-right.

I truly hope the French parliament passes this anti-defamation and anti-insult amendment into law. The chaos that will follow will result in a breakdown of the social order accelerating what is inevitable, the final determination of the place of isalm in western secular society. Without this accelration, the determination may well be put off until such time as the issue becomes moot due to the growing mulim presence as a percentage of population.

How could this law be enforced? I assume that French law provides some protection similar to U.S.equal protection, and some judicial standard that allows laws to be struck because they are inherently vague and unenforceable. What would a tnjurinst construe as an insult to a religion as opposed as an insult to an individual or small group of individuals using religion, rightly or wrongly applied, as a motivation for their actions. How would a jurist construe the study of historical fact if it conflicts with religious fantasy.

These are issues facing Europe presently, such as vetting of textbooks. But these issues will be mostly ignored as long as there is some generally perceived reasonableness as these issues are managed at an administrative level outside of public scrutiny. But once it becomes law, and the still majority of the populace sees their own laws being used against them, then the logical disconnenct becomes too obvious to ignore. If the political elites continue to ignore the problem, the Europeans, while still a majority, will not.

The dying regional theater houses will be revived by runs of the plays of Voltaire.

tnjurinst --> jurist (its the keyboard's fault).

The anti-islamic french resistance has a new website ,it is in english and it is very informative:
http://www.english-french-echos.blogspot.com

Sorry,wrong website,try this one:
http://www.english-france-echos.blogspot.com

I have gone to the website posted by adela on several previous occassions. Often I get a "Forbidden - permission denied" error message. A browser refresh apparently cures the problem at this site.

A good read from the Western Standard, about the publishing of the Muhammad cartoons. (registration required, quick and free)

http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?

Unless he publicly pronounces against the islamisation of France like Philippe de Villiers, he will certainly not provide a solution.
Posted by: Sebastien

I cannot believe that French politicans aren't knocking each other down as they run the soapbox to denounce the islamic assault on French culture.

"I cannot believe that French politicans aren't knocking each other down as they run the soapbox to denounce the islamic assault on French culture."
-- from a posting above

The anti-American, anti-Israel, and philo-islamic pensee unique of most of the French press and radio and television, slowly injecting its poison into the body politic and the collective conscious over the past 40 years, corresponding in time almost exactly to three events:

1) In 1963, Tne end of the Algerian War and the arrival first of the harkis, and then of other Muslim immigrants from Algeria, at first men only, and then later allowed to be "joined by their families" in the naive hope that this would cut down on criminal behavior by single males (the assumption being that as an "Arab family man with his wife and children" (the "wives" part, and the bringing over of dozens of relatives through all kinds of schemes and frauds), would be less likely to engage in the kind of antisocial (i.e., anti-French Infidel) behavior of which signs had already been given.

2) In 1967, the successful defense of Israel against the assault threatened by Nasser, together with Syria (and then with King Hussein more or less dragged in -- see the famous tapes of the Nasser-Hussein telephone conversations in which the former assured the latter that the Egyptians were winning and it was time for Jordan to join the others in going in for the kill), led the Arabs, with both Nasser and the then-leader of the local Arabs, having been discredited, to redefine the conflict to make it more palatable to the West. No more of those Cairene crowds shouting, as they did in May, "we will redeem with our blood blah blah..." and no more "we will drive the Jews into the sea" stuff either. No, first the local Arabs got their makeover, which took a little doing, as the newly-named "Palestinian people." And so the Arab refusal to contemplate or tolerate the possiblity of Israel -- the Lesser Jihad that had been waged against the Jews even before the declaration of independence of the Jewish state in 1948 -- was repackaged for consumption, especially in Western Europe, as the "two-tiny-peoples" business.

3. In 1973, under cover, and with the excuse of, the Yom Kippur War, the OPEC states managed to force a quadrupling of oil prices (the main driving force in this, by the way, for a rise in prices had been the Shah of Iran). As J. B. Kelly showed in "Arabia, the Gulf, and the West," there was no effective Arab oil boycott (the U.S. and Holland, deemed pro-Israel, got more of their oil than did Britain and France, deemed pro-Arab) and could not have been. The blague of Yamani and OPEC was accepted. And ever since the nonsense about the "price moderation" of "our staunch ally" Saudi Arabia has been parrotted by those individuals, in and out of government, who have themselves profitted from their own recycling of petrodollars, or that of their relatives or friends, or corporations, and who have been perfectly at ease preventing the widespread comprehension of how the Saudis are not, and never were, and what's more never could be, our "staunch allies," that it was therefore necessary to begin, right away, taxing gasoline at the pump, so that its price would always go up, steadily and not abruptly, in order to encourage the necessary adjustments in the automobile industry and in driving habits, that it was further necessary to tax the use of oil in all sorts of ways, in order not to gain "energy independence" (a false goal, and a useless one, since energy supplies are fungible, and what is not sold here can be sold elsewhere), and to make the American government, and then the public, understand that the OPEC revenues would -- some of it -- inevitably go to the purposes that fabulously rich Muslim states and individuals would naturally wish such discretionary income to go, to funding the Jihad. And so it has, and so it does, and so it always will.

4. And it was also during this period, roughly from the late 1960s on, that the Muslim migration, which began with the gastarbeiter program of Ludwig Ehrhard's miracle-economy of West Germany, importing Turkish manodopera on the assumption that a) these workers would stay to work, but would not remain permanently in Germany and b) that the Turks, qua Turks, were permanently secular, and in the West would only become more so -- there was little understanding of how Kemalism had not spread to the stratum of Turkish society represented by those workers, and that in any case, nostalgia and homesickness or emotional depaysement would always lead not to less, but to more, Islam.

It all happened almost at the same time.

And there it is.

French politicians, like British politicians, are perfectly willing to accommodate Muslim voters, who vote en bloc against what they perceive as those insufficiently solicitous of Muslim demands and desires. And since, in so many countries, the indigenous Infidels do not vote as a bloc on such matters, but are split in all sorts of ways, the Muslim vote can be decisive here and there, and unless that vote is checked, unless the number of Muslims able to vote is kept firmnly down, and unless Infidels counter that weight by voting firmly to prevent the acceptance and spread of Islam until it can no longer be checked, then -- well, then you get what you see today.

And here we are.

Sébastien wrote:

"Our leaders do not represent us, and this is becoming clearer every day".

I confirm.

France is a great nation and who knows what can still get out of it. The French have shown, during their long history, that they could react when their liberty is threatened. Wait until the 2007 elections.

Thanks for the explanation Hugh.

Here's hoping that the infidels starting voting as a bloc, while they still have a chance.

"As a member of Chirac's party, I believe that he's centre-right".

Waterdragon... As a member of Chirac's party, he is more left wing than your most left wing democrat.

As a member of Chirac's party, he is more left wing than your most left wing democrat.
Posted by: joiesauvage

If I had to guess (fortunately I don't HAVE to, but am going to just the same) the most right wing in France is still to the left of a left wing democrat.

France is a great nation and who knows what can still get out of it. The French have shown, during their long history, that they could react when their liberty is threatened. Wait until the 2007 elections.
Posted by: joiesauvage

I sincerely hope the 2007 elections produce some positive results. I would hate to see the Eiffel Tower turned into a giant “prayer tower”

"I would hate to see the Eiffel Tower turned into a giant “prayer tower”

Shtttttt ! Don't give them ideas !

Sorry, Joie

Those who follow the link in Sebastian's post above will find an article about a televised debate between Djamel Bourras, a Muslim judoka (Chirac's daughter has had two boyfriends, both judokas, the Muslim one being the apparent father of her child), and Max Gallo, "intellectual" who is, by "French intellectual" standards, not entirely intolerable on the subject of Islam but "cotonneux" (according to one grim reviewer). Gallo apparently conceded far too much, and attacked far too little -- indeed did not attack at all. Apparently it is just too much to bother studying up on the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, asking too much of would-be defenders of the West to put in a week, say, of reading of Bat Ye'or on the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule, too much to read a few histories. Why? There are so few even with the right ideas. When one deducts from their small number those who haven't studied up, and drawn the right conclusions from the information available, there are only a handful left. This should not be.

For readers who don't want to click on the link, here is the article on the discussion and the responses:

Bien que Max Gallo soit un peu trop prévenant à l'égard de Djamel Bouras, nous déclarons l'auteur de "Fier d'être français" grand vainqueur par ippon.

posted by Fontey @ 4:19 PM

6 Comments:
At 5:26 PM, jatlh said...
Je me suis demande si j'allais ecouter cet enregistrement jusqu'au bout et je m'y suis forcee.

J'ai note les expressions faciales ironiques d'un Bouras qui donnait l'impression d'avoir envie de rire et qui ne pouvait s'empecher de se mettre la main devant la bouche. Je me rappelle du judoka que je regardais avec plaisir. Il me fait penser maintenant a un musulman qui est musulman avant toute chose et qui n'a pas de culture. Il reprend le discours victimaire qu'on connait bien maintenant. En douce, il nous dit "qu'ils arrivent a avoir des eglises pour leurs mosquees" ce qui est vachement revelateur... en plus il nous parle d'une de ses references, m'bala. Quel intello ce mec!!!
Quant a Gallo, je ne l'ai pas trouve prevenant mais plutot mou, servile, et malgre tout ce qu'il peut dire, politiquement correct, melangeant gentiment la chevre et le chou. Je reste decue. Finalement, c'est encore ce c...... d'ardisson pour lequel j'ai un profond mepris, que j'ai trouve le plus honnete. Je n'aurais jamais cru dire cela.

At 10:53 PM, Vol de l'Aigle said...
Les amis,
Je donne entièrement raison à Jatlh.
Gallo a été cotonneux, consensuel à souhait et lorsque Bouras nous a refait le coup du miracle de l'Andalousie il s'est cru obligé d'acquiescer.

Ca manque vraiment de tonus tout cà. On est loin de Wafa Sultan.

Je suis moi-aussi contraint de recónnaitre que le malfaisant Ardisson a été bon et que de depuis quelque temps son émission est devenu relativement supportable.

En conclusion je suis accablé par le caractére anodin, inoffensif de l'intervention de Max Gallo et je crois que l'on ne peut pas attendre quoique ce soit de l'élite médiatique après des prestations aussi velléitaires.

At 12:12 AM, jatlh said...
Merci a Vol de l'aigle. Cela fait du bien d'avoir la confirmation que je n'ai pas "reve", et par ailleurs j'ai oublie de faire remarquer que Gallo "est d'accord" pour la construction de mosquees. Il ignore sans doute qu'il n'y a aucune eglise en terre d'islam et qu'il y en aura jamais. Et pour cause, mais probablement, n'a t'il jamais lu le coran de m... bref, c'est un ennemi de la France mas o menos.

At 3:13 PM, PUNISHER said...
Plutot Menos que Mas d'ailleurs, le Gallo semblait émasculé devant Bouras, qui soit-dit-en passant à vraiment la plus sale gueule qui m'ait été donné de voir à la TV depuis un bail, il devrait jouer dans des westerns spaghettis à la Corbucci (meme si on en fait plus).
Il aurait été facile de lui clouer le bec à ce judoka abruti et prosélyte qui soutient Dieudonné (grand penseur comme chacun sait!)

Et Ardicon, il ne perd rien pour attendre, un livre sur lui est en préparation, un "livre noir" sur ses propos judéophobes et homophobes, ses plagiats littéraires, ses liens étranges avec des personnes peu fréquentables...

At 5:45 PM, Anonymous said...
Djamel Bouras ... ah oui ! celui qui a été suspendu deux ans pour dopage. Une référence il est vrai. Un exemple en sorte.

At 9:48 PM, Serviteur said...
il s'était plaint à l'époque de sa suspension par ...Marie-Georges buffet... et se posait alors déjà en victime de racisme..! Se défendant notamment en disant "chuis musulman et un musulman, y s'doppe pas..."
C'est jean-claude vandamme en arabe c'est-à- dire en plus con et en moins sympa (voir la tête, les rictus, la haine contenue caractéristique...) Gallo est "pitoyable" c'est vrai, tous ces intellectuels (finkelkraut, ferry, gallo...) aident quand même notre cause, mais... Ils en ont mis du temps pour réfléchir comme le français moyen, un certain peuple forcément franchouillard et raciste qu'ils méprisaient il n'y a pas si longtemps... Et même sa citation de Churchill est tronquée, celle qu'on connait est plus belle: "Vous avez préféré le déshonneur à la guerre, vous avez le déshonneur, et vous aurez la guerre..." Mais Gallo ne voulait sans doute bien ne pas faire trop polémique et vindicatif non plus... Rassurons-nous, ils ne voteront pas trop à droite..."

One begs to differ with that last posting, which parenthetically places Finkielkraut in the same galere (row, row, row your boat) as Max Gallo. Gallo, but not Finkielfraut, may well have appeared at one of those dinners that Gabriel Matzneff describes in "Mes Amours Decomposes," in which he remembers to list each dish and each wine (nuits-st.georges 1963, pauillac 1955) with the same attention to detail that he devotes in the rest of the book to other matters.

Finkielkraut has in the past shown one brief moment of weakness, but has recovered himself on the subject of Islam.

At this point, Gallo and others should go on the offensive. Sweetness-and-light at this point does no good. Take every opportunity to reveal the tenets and history of Islam, and make sure to bring your opponenet to a hysterical and confused pitch early on; there are easy ways, seemingly tossed off, to achieve the desired effect.

Fine. Let's also make it a crime to insult a great religion whose greatest theologian was a native of France: le Eglise Reformee (Calviniste-my religion).

That means that the Calvinists get to proclaim Trinitarian theology, the atoning death of Christ, and Christ as God Incarnate.

The Muslims then defame the Trinity, deny the fundamental Christological doctrine.

Both sides scream that the other is wrong, get accused of "Defamation", and the law turns in on itself.

Mmmmm....it's been a long time since my high school French class.

Should one have to be a French citizen to declare the establishment of the French government in exile? Does not sympathetic interest in, attention to, affection for, the French language, and French literature, and the assorted products of the Perfected Civilisation, such as the dictée, and the Declaration des Droits de l’Homme, entitle anyone to register alarm over the state of Quasi-Occupied France, and to declare here, on the Internet, the establishment of Free France? And why not? If deemed silly, it is silliness with a point. And why not on the Internet? Where else? The world-wide web is easier to access than are communications from Brazzaville. Besides, in cyberspace there are no tse-tse flies.

Beyond that declaration we non-citizens of France would not presume. All we can do is dust those chairs, in serried ranks, from time to time, as they wait to be filled by the French men and women who leave the government, or even leave France (see the example of Maurice Dantec), wondering how to affect policy from a distance.

Which French diplomat, which dutiful enarque, who has been charting his careful rise, from his job as consul in this European city, to ambassador to that African country, and then on to the next level, that ambassadorship in Latin America or southeast Asia, and then, if he never dares to utter a word about the islamization of France or indeed about much else that is worrisome, may hope to rise higher still, and be appointed, after Africa and Asia and Latin America, ambassador to one of the countries in Eastern Europe, and then to Western Europe, and then for those who are the favored few, there is Russia (Paleologue! Helene Carrere d'Encausse--oops, she wasn't an ambassador, was she?), to India (Octavio Paz! --oops, he wasn't French, he was Mexican, sorry), and even China (yes, that’s the ticket, that’s the Wave of the Future) or to the post that still, despite everything, is considered the plum, the prize: Ambassador to the United States. Jusserand, St.-John Perse (with that nice island off the coast of Maine presented to him by his American admirers) and now you too, M. Dupont, you could be that ambassador.

But just how much should you want to rise uninterruptedl high in the French ruling class, if doing so requires that you do nothing to disturb the equanimity of the likes of Chirac or D. de V. or others of that ilk? What citizen of France, now in the French diplomatic corps, or for that matter in the armed forces of France (what about that force de frappe? Who's minding that store? Who's thinking about what might happen to NATO as Europe Islamizes?), someone who is attached to his country, and not theoretically, who wishes to preserve France, not merely preserve a land mass that is slowly but inexorably being transformed into something unrecognizable, something quasi-maghrebin in the making, and becoming more so every day? This is not tolerable. This is not to be tolerated.

Perhaps the time is not ready. And readiness is all. Or not ripe. And ripeness is all. But when? Perhaps after the next election, if the next election does not go right.

We’ll see.

Meanwhile, the seats of that government-in-exile are here, and will be looked after, and well tended, waiting for the volunteers.

Who wants to be the first?

Sebastien,

What is the true number of muslims in France ? Since the secular republic does not keep records on religious affiliation, how does anyone know there are 5 million muslims in France ?

Also, Philippe de Villiers sounds like an interesting character. Is he the Charles Martel we need today ???

Let me tell you this: it wont pass. End of story, there's really no other way of saying it.

No, such a measure won't pass now. But five years, or ten? Could you, in 1960, have predicted that Western Europe would look like this? No. In 1970? No. In 1980? No. By 1990 -- some could. It is now 2006. Are you sure about what will happen in 2010, or by 2020? That is not very far away.

Sir, statisticaly, I can tell you that by 2060, Italy wont existe as a nation anymore, and that by 2100, the mediterranean regions of Europe will be a part of the Maghreb, demographicaly speaking. So of course such laws will eventualy come to pass, its innevitable, unless REAL solutions are applied to replace immigration.

The question I'm asking is, can the liberal modele of society, that allowed minorities to become majorities through immigration and multiculturalism, survive when muslims will become a majority, or at least, a large minority? History teache us that no, its impossible, such changes in demography were never peaceful. Of course, it will take more than all of history as proof, or intellectuals like you or Mr. Spencer, to convince the dominant ideology of our society to change.

As for the law itself, its not dhimmitude in the real sense of the term. After all, all religions are equaly protected by this law. Of course, I'm not saying that this isn't another disgusting liberticide law that will only profit minorities, another fine exemple that the destiny of a nation is escaping its control.

I still remmember what I said about secluded, indifferent elies calling the shot over the people. I still stand by my affirmation.

It seems pretty obvious to me at this point that a great many French people don't care what is happening to France (Sebastian and joiesuavage and our other French visitors notwithstanding). Maybe some are "broken" men, like the philosopher Alain Finkelkraut is rumored to be. Maybe others are like Chirac himself, putting their fingers into the wind and feeling which way the power and money is blowing, and already planning and trying to insure for themselves and their offspring a priveleged place in Eurabia. Maybe as Spengler at Asia Times implies, there is simply little reason to fight when one can look around at the demographics of one's own culture and see that there's no use in fighting to sacrifice oneself when one really has no offspring to sacrifice oneself for. And maybe there are just thousands of anonymous citizens who share the sentiments of so many internet posters I've seen: "Thank God I won't be around to see it".

There's no hope for the European elites like Chirac and his ilk. Greed has played too huge a role in human history not to be cynical about the prospects of him and his ilk (and there are many, many like him) ever arising to the defense of western civilization. Also, there are only so many individual's who can withstand the kind of very public assault that Finkelkraut has had to endure and without a doubt there will be many more individuals to come who will be forced to discover where the ends of their inner reserves lie. Some will surprise us. Many will not. And Spengler, while he is theorizing ultimately about group Darwinian dynamics (frankly, much of what he writes, though I find it fascinating, goes over my head), doesn't sound too hopeful.

So that leaves the average individual, whose thoughts I have periodically seen on the internet, expressing the sentiment, "Thank God I won't be around to see it". I admit to falling into that frame of mind myself sometimes. But that frame of mind admittedly does raise the age-old question:

"If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it does it make a sound?"

I ponder that question with a new twist now:

"If the entire world is plunged into 7th century barbarity and there are no "hearing" or morally "sensate" people around, do the screams make a sound?

""If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it does it make a sound?"

I ponder that question with a new twist now:

"If the entire world is plunged into 7th century barbarity and there are no "hearing" or morally "sensate" people around, do the screams make a sound? "

Yes, exactly, you sumed it all up! Caroline, I love you as much as I can love someone I only saw on a board. That is, I love your brain, and would like to do things to it.

So this bring the question, how is it legitimate to try and saveguard a culture, a group, that isn't even viable in the long term anyway? Why would you do it, if there is no future? Demohraphy is destiny, and Europe does not have one. We have no will to perpetuate ourselves, because that would bring about anti-liberal mesure, and this, is unthinkable and impossible. It would go against the foundation of our culture. Therefore, what is going on right now will continue to happen, until we reach a point whee the liebral system is under threat by one of the very minority it allowed to exist, and then, you will have conflict. Thailand and Indonesia are Italy and France's future.

Those who pretend that everything will be all right, and those who think we are doomed, are both wrong. For god's sake, the world of Islam creates nothing, produces nothing, offers nothing. In a fit of absentmindedness, only partly explained by greed, various countries in Western Europe let in various numbers and kinds of Muslims. Mainly Turks into what was then West Germany, as gastarbeiter. Pakistanis, taking advantage of their "post-colonial" Empire status, to move to Great Britain. First harkis (the Arabs and Berbers who fought not against but with the French), brought to France after the Algerian War in order to save their lives, and then Algerian (and other maghrebin) adult males allowed in for work, and then Giscard d'Estaing, in a fatally mistaken move, decided to allow for "family members" to join them (kit, caboodle, and many wives and many present and future children), Moroccans in Spain, and Muslims from Indonesia, Morocco, and Turkey in Holland, and ditto in Belgium, and from Egypt, Libya, and Somalia in Italy, and so on.

But for god's sake, the world of Infidels has only now begun to comprehend, and if even tiny sums are put into the effort, and right now there are still less than 20 million Muslims out of a population of more than 300 million in the European community. The problem is the size of families, the negative population growth of the Infidels in Italy and France, the army of hirelings in the Western world who serve as apologists for Islam, the agents of what may be unexaggeratedly called a kind of informal Islamintern International who are already well-placed at the BBC, at Agence France-Presse, at RFI, at such newspapers as "The Guardian" and, despite its odd bravery over the cartoons, "Le Monde" (why not return Peroncel-Hugoz to his previous reporting on Islam?).

Everything is reversible. The bad press of the Americans is reversible. The disgusting treatment, and misreporting on Israel is reversible, and so is the invention of the "Palestinian" people. The understanding that the woes of Islam are a direct result of Islam's discouragement of free and skeptical inquiry, its ban on free thought of any kind, its failure to respect the individual but to put all emphasis on the collective, its inability ever to locate the source of a government's legitimacy in the expressed will of what, for Believers, are mere mortals rather than the expressed will of Allah, as determined and codified by Islamic scholars long ago, which resulted in the Shari'a or Holy Law of Islam -- all of this can be known.

Despite the best efforts of the leaders of the countries of the Western world, the evidence of our senses cannot be denied, and more and more Infidels are figuring things out -- too slowly for their own good (just look at the misallocation of resources, and horrifying failure to properly exploit the situation in Iraq)-- but still all kinds of eyes are opening.

Despair is not called for. Nor Pollyannish hope. Neither the one thing nor the other.

Not everyone is prepared to roll over and play dead. The peoples of the Lands of the Infidels, which includes more than the Western nations, are entitled to enforce measures both rational and justified, commensurate with the scope and sinister nature of the menace they face, and their own inability to distinguish between the "moderate" Muslim (whose "moderateness" may be feigned, or temporary, and certainly is not a characteristic that can be passed on indefinitely to progeny, unless we are all to reject Darwin and accept Lamarck and even the late and unlamented Trofim Lysenko).

Praise the Lord (if you wish) but pass the ammunition.

I mean all kinds of ammunition -- not only the physical kind. Aux armes, citoyens! And Sursum Corda! And keep on trucking.

Elliott - I wrote that for you mon amour. Well, let's just say for your frame of mind :-)

"We have no will to perpetuate ourselves, because that would bring about anti-liberal mesure, and this, is unthinkable and impossible. It would go against the foundation of our culture."

Why is it unthinkable and impossible? Is "liberalism" the idea, the abstract philosophy (at least as you and apparently many understand it) more important to you than human life? Than human suffering?

Which takes precedence - The idea? The theory? Or actual human life and suffering as it confronts and exists in reality? To me, the answer is the latter. And if "liberalism" the IDEA doesn't lead to that conclusion and somehow work towards that outcome, then my instincts as a human being say that there is something wrong with the idea - perhaps in the way it has been interpreted to date in human history, or perhaps in the way it is being incorrectly implemented. But ultimately I am prepared to question the very idea itself if it objectively proves to be a false solution - a failed idea - in solving the more factual and real problem of human suffering. "Liberalism" is ultimately an idea and a theory. Human suffering is not.

Expect to see a backlash from the French people over this outrage. Expect large protests, civil disobedience, the publication of ever more outrageous blasphemous cartoons exposing Islam for what it is. Soon we'll see french politicians swinging from lamposts, and Muslims fleeing the continent in the face of angry French mobs who will fight to keep their secular country fee of religious totalitarianism.
Because, as we know, the French never surrender. NEVER.

Key battles are now to be fought. Iran is telling the world it will do as it wishes, and thinks nations should be removed from the planet.

That nation will not wait for sixteen years to see what happens, it will play out the hand it has been tossed soon.

The French can help fight Iran at the U.N. This would help turn the corner and start the process of sorts. Frendships , or at least common ground can be found.

This should be, as far as problems now on approach, the first to be addressed.

Debating laws are fine, but if the house is burning you get the people out first.

While The New Duranty Times offers, as its despatch from France, news about the contents, and popularity, of an exhibit on "Arab Science" (the usual suspects, from algebra to astrolabes, and of course lots about those translators, all of them Arabic-using Jews and Christians), the French newspaper Liberation offers Pascal Bruckner's "Les Deux Blasphemes" which, if you read French (as those coming to this particular thread are more likely to), you might wish to read.

Thanks Hugh for pointing out this article. A link is here

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=364636

Liberation and the New Duranty Times share the same politics.

Let's see the Times break some taboos!

Eurabian dhimmis are unfit to govern free societies, both them and their masters in their Islamic superiority obsessed minds have forgot the history of christianity, a brotherhood that will stand by its faith in the face of death. That is why even Saudi Arabia cannot truly defeat true christians on its own soil. For all its oppressive laws.

Not so many months ago prominent French political leaders stated they would like to see "the Americans silenced" and now it would appear that the French themselves are being silenced. And so it goes. The French are falling into the hole they hoped Americans would fall into. While it has yet to be determined whether or not Americans will fall into that hole (and they may yet....although we certainly hope NOT!!) it does go to show that the old bromide "be careful what you wish for..." contains a grain of truth!

Great comment, Pythagoras...! One which could have been titled:

When a bromide is also a bromide, or how the new whore of Babylon got her comeuppance.

What could be better? Bromides for the greatest bromide spewers of all time! Their latest bromide, a bromide in itself.

jsla: The truth contained in any oft-repeated saying outweighs whatever triteness it may have accrued over time. (Such sayings may not have been trite when first coined).

We were hoping readers would have had the presence of mind to focus on THAT instead of jumping all over the triteness business.

As things stand, the French should have known better than to wish ill for others. What went around clearly came around.

A lesson to be learned in the "Twilight Zone."

I was simply noting the irony of your observation and expanding upon it. (I never tire pointing out the infinite flaws of France) It wasn't about triteness at all -- It was a (perhaps lame) attempt to dilate on two definitions of the word "bromide". Also, never having written the word before, and for perfectly personal reasons, I had special fun using it no less than 6 times in 3 sentences.

Among other things, a bromide can be an empty fatuous or trite saying, and it can also be a sedative. The fact that France quite often wants to shut others up, and here I can't resist adding to your observation the comments by Mr. Chirac towards the Eastern Europeans when those newly admitted EU members sided with America in the leadup to the Iraq war: "They missed a great opportunity to be silent...." (Oh! French perfidy knows no bounds!) -- anyway -- how perfectly perfect to see those empty trite tantrums thrown by France to "shut up" (a bromide in the first sense) be met, not with the shutting up of America, or the shutting up of Eastern Europeans, or even the shutting up of their restive and exploding Muslim population, but the shutting up of France in an attempt to calm the hatreds seething under her skin (a bromide in the second sense).

When you have to spell it out, something must have gone wrong in the original -- and in the spelling out itself, something gets lost in the spelling out. I should have held my comment I suppose...