The Last Sleep of the Civilization Part II
In the first part of this series, it was about COVID-19. But the symptoms of the impending death of our civilizations include another one, which was visible for quite some time—but the political correctness managed to hide it by declaring the truth illegal.
This is Eurabia–the Union of Islamic European Republics. Everyone in Europe should be aware of that, but they’re in a denial stage. There are laws in Europe that declare “racist” and “an incitement to hatred” any remarks that state the truth. Also, everyone that doesn’t love Islam is extremist, xenophobic, racist (again, as if religion were a race), and populist.
In France alone, between Dec. 20, 2014, and Aug. 14, 2017, there were 34 Islamist terrorist attacks. I stopped counting them, so I don’t know how many I missed counting before the Dec. 11, 2018, Strasbourg terror attack. Then again I didn’t count anything (but I remember the May 24, 2019, Lyon bombing and the Oct. 3, 2019, Paris HQ stabbing of six colleagues by a radicalized police employee), until recently they had 3 Islamist terrorist attacks in 6 weeks:
- the knife attack near the ex-Charlie Hebdo offices on Sept. 2020 (by an 18-year-old man of Pakistani origin);
- the murder by decapitation of Samuel Paty, a French middle-school teacher, on Oct. 16, 2020 (by an 18-year-old Russian immigrant of Chechen ethnic descent);
- the killing of three people in the Notre-Dame de Nice basilica on Oct. 29 (by a Tunisian man).
France is now more dangerous than Israel (as a matter of fact, many Jews left France for Israel because of the increasing anti-Semitism in France, anti-Semitism perpetrated by Muslims, not by Christians). And yet, what is the Establishment doing? They’re too busy to demonize those who tell the truth. They cry “Islamophobia” and “Ne faisons pas d’amalgame” (Let’s not tar them all [radical Islamists and law-abiding Muslims] with the same brush), when the severity of the situation is unprecedented. Ever since Mitterrand’s first term in office, France is in a civil war nobody wants to acknowledge.
Even for the Charlie Hebdo shooting of Jan. 7, 2015, with all the perpetrators well-known, the trial only started more that five years later, on Sept. 2, 2020! This is how much they care for justice in France.
I’m far from being a fan of Charlie Hebdo’s, a magazine of infinite poor taste, but I am all for the right of free speech, the right to offend, and the right to blasphemy.
Unaccompanied minors («mineurs non accompagnés») of migrant origin are responsible in some cities of France for 40% to 60% of the delinquency. But when someone like the essayist Éric Zemmour tells this on the set of CNews or somewhere else, he’s subject to one more criminal fine (he’s collecting them, as the judiciary can’t be bothered with the real criminals), because since the Pleven Law (1972) onwards, everything can be considered “an incitement to racial hatred” and punished. Organizations and associations such as SOS Racisme, LICRA (Ligue internationale contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme), CRAN (Conseil représentatif des associations noires de France), MRAP (Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peuples), l’Observatoire des inégalités, and even Dilcrah (Délégation interministérielle contre le racisme, l’antisémitisme et la haine anti-LGBT) only notice when “a group” that is of a foreign ethnicity, a less-than-very-white skin color and, most importantly, of Muslim religion is “offended”–so they can take action against whoever dares to say that such people could ever be criminals! The wolf cries wolf: the CCIF (Collectif contre l’islamophobie en France) and the “humanitarian association” BarakaCity might be disbanded by law, especially as the CCIF seems to have had a role in the assassination of Samuel Paty.
An entire society of “islamo-gauchistes” is fighting an imaginary “islamophobia” instead of defending the victims of radical Islam; instead of fighting the communautarisme (in the French context, communautarisme means non-integration and the non-respect of the law and of the “values of the Republic”), they ban the use of words such as ensauvagement, barbarie.
In the show Face à l’info of Oct. 29, on CNEWS, Éric Zemmour met one more time the philosopher Michel Onfray. Hedonistic, epicurean, atheist, adept of sovereignty, but still of the libertarian left (influenced by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s mutualist socialism, not by Marx!), Onfray is one of the very few independent intellectual voices in the French society. And here’s admitting himself that France is in a civil war:
On peut parler de guerre et on peut parler de paix aussi, en même temps, ce n’est pas parce qu’il est question de guerre que pour autant la paix n’est pas possible ou pas pensable ; on ne fait la paix que parce qu’il y a la guerre ; ensuite, je ne veux pas qu’il n’y ait que de débats sémantiques, « est-ce qu’on a le droit de dire sauvageon » […]
Oui, il s’agit d’une guerre civile quand des Français tuent d’autres Français, que ces Français soient anciens, récents, modernes, arrivés depuis 8 ans, 9 ans, je ne sais plus combien pour ce monsieur tchétchène, ce sont des Français. Et donc quand des Français égorgent d’autres Français, tuent d’autres Français, massacrent d’autres Français, le font régulièrement — j’ai appris en écoutant Éric Zemmour qu’il y avait 120 attaques à couteau tous les jours ; qu’est-ce que c’est que 120 attaques à couteau tous les jours si ce n’est une guerre civile ?
Unfortunately, not all such criminals are French citizens; some are even born in France, but not all of them. And it’s exactly what Zemmour said about unaccompanied minors of foreign origin like the Chechen who decapitated Samuel Paty (that they’re thieves, murderers and rapists) that created an outcry in France. When the bien-pensants are thinking of the “poor juveniles who are denigrated,” they can’t see the victims of such racaille. (This reminds me that, when there’s no Islamist terror attack in France, the national sport is burning cars, as many of them as possible; just sit and wait for the New Year’s Eve.)
An opinion poll after Paty’s murder found 79% of respondents felt “Islamism had declared war” on France and the French republic, and 87% considered France’s approach to secularism to be threatened. And yet, after Macron declared that “Samuel Paty was killed because Islamists want our future and because they know that with quiet heroes like him, they will never have it. They divide the faithful and the unbelievers,” the bien-pensants from The New York Times rhetorically asked: “Is France Fueling Muslim Terrorism by Trying to Prevent It? Emmanuel Macron’s government may unwittingly be breeding the kind of communalism it wants to ward off.”
In a tweet (now deleted but preserved here at #12), the former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad wrote: “Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past.” Yeah, Islam is a religion of peace, sure.
Then, of course (what to expect from such a scumbag?), Erdogan said Macron’s place should be in a psychiatric hospital, and called for a boycott on the French products. He also said that Europe’s Muslims are being treated like Jews before WWII and no less!
Like it or not, there is an ongoing war between Islam and Europe. Just like Zemmour said back in March, “Sans la religion catholique et l’Eglise, il n’y aurait pas de France. Je ne suis pas catholique, je peux donc l’affirmer d’autant plus librement” (“Without the Catholic religion and the Church, there would be no France. I’m not Catholic, so I can say it all the more freely”). He maintains for quite some time that the European civilization is a Judeo-Christian one, and that there’s a war between the Arab-Muslim universe (Islam “with a big I”) and Europe.
But it’s illegal to say that in public in France. The country where the May 1968 retards were chanting « Il est interdit d’interdire » is now a country full of interdictions.
Suppose you want to expel the unaccompanied minors who for various reasons don’t deserve the statute of refugee–like the one who later decapitated Samuel Paty, and which was accorded asylum for the mere fact that it came from Chechnya. Based on such loose to non-existent criteria, half of the planet would qualify for living in Europe!
And there’s no shortage of people…
…nor of means, especially as some European NGOs are encouraging the traffickers by collecting the smuggled people in the Mediterranean.
The law doesn’t allow you to do that. Éric Zemmour insists that the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC/CIDE) forbids France to expel any juvenile. Basically, to restore the national sovereignty France would have to exit both the UNCRC and Council of Europe (don’t mistake it for the Council of Europe nor for the Council of the European Union, there are three totally different institutions).
As a matter of fact, as François Asselineau constantly says, to be able to control its borders, France should also exit the European Union and the Schengen Agreement, especially the first one. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007), at Article 77, prohibits (except temporarily and in emergency conditions) the border controls between member states, and at Article 78, instates a generous “common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection with a view to offering appropriate status to any third-country national requiring international protection and ensuring compliance with the principle of non-refoulement,” unsurprisingly “in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees, and other relevant treaties.”
There’s ZERO sovereignty for EU member states. Zero.
Maybe there were ways to preserve the public order in Europe, even in such conditions, were it not for a huge laxity towards the law-breakers. Without any discrimination, the law should be applied to anyone and everyone. But when most serious crimes are committed by certain people from certain areas and usually having a certain national, ethnic and religious background, nothing is done, and France and Europe are becoming the playground of ISIS (Daesh).
Instead of reintroducing the penal colonies (les bagnes), the criminals are handled as if they were victims!
Of course, sometimes people become criminals for lacking proper education. The quality and the authority of the school is in decline since May 1968, then since the political correctness took over.
But what could the school teach people? The European values are not the moral ones, but more something like this:
Meanwhile, the Quran, who never changed, so it can be interpreted (out of context) as inciting to killing of the infidels, is taught everywhere. To my surprise, in the British magazine The MagPi issue 99 (Nov. 2021), one of the practical projects involving a Raspberry Pi was this a prayer reminder clock, and one of the pictures was from the mosque ACACM, Albertville, France!
No, I’m not a fascist. For instance, I’m not suggesting people should go to church every Sunday or that they should pledge allegiance to the national flag and look like being drugged, as it’s the case every single day in every single school in America… and not only there:
Sovereignty, patriotism and national identity are not to mean nationalism, discrimination, injustice. But when a reverse colonization is taking place, when Islamization Crusades are ongoing, it’s suicidal to let the Establishment, alongside what’s left of the Left, to let our civilization destroyed!
It’s been said that people in Central and Eastern Europe are more xenophobic and racist than those in Western Europe. If you agree that “-phobia” in “xenophobia” means fear and aversion, not hatred, I’d agree too with at least the first part of the assertion.
You see, when the Iron Curtain fell in 1989, most East Europeans had an idyllic image of the West. Sure thing, they hadn’t been isolated from the West the way the North Koreans still are, but they weren’t able to travel much, and to most of them, Paris, Rome, London were atemporal, frozen in a certain period or in a mix of such times. So that many of them, in their first visits to the West, were under a shock: “Is this really London, or Bombay?” or “Are these really Paris, Marseille, Lyon, or Tunis, Algiers, Rabat?”
One cannot blame them. Eastern Europeans, despite the Communist indoctrination, remained terribly conservative. They accepted in principle the idea that former imperial colonies would necessarily have “visible minorities” (by skin color, ethnic or religious clothing, etc.), but they were expecting them to be integrated, discreet, or both. In other words, visible but inconspicuous at the same time! When so many Polish and Romanians went to France in the 1920s and 1930s or even before the WWI, most of them tried to integrate, not to boast their difference, nor to impose their cultural differences to their new country of residence. (Well, not all of them were the likes of Ionesco, Cioran, Eliade or Brâncuși, but nonetheless…) And this exactly what used to happen with the “black” or “Arab” or Muslim minorities in Europe in the times when they were very small minorities. Once they become more visible–say, 5%, but because you won’t find them in a village in the middle of nowhere, but rather in a few large cities, people tend to believe they’re 20-25% because of their increased visibility in busy places–many of them also become more arrogant and aggressive; and they started to disregard the laws, customs and values, claiming theirs are better because Muhammad (peace be upon him) knew better. With the new generations of Muslims born in Europe, the rejection of the European values is even stronger–just look at France. Of course, things can be delicate in Britain, Denmark, Sweden, even Germany, especially with the migrant waves coming via the Mediterranean Sea.
Let’s make it clear: everyone has exactly the same rights as anyone else as long as they observe all the laws. The problem is that an important number of them don’t.
If 60-80% of the crimes are made by certain categories that only make 5-10% of the population, can we talk of discrimination and “amalgame” if we pointed to the respective categories and communities? It could be argued–like in the US–that there is a bias against them, but even so, this cannot hide the fact that a higher percentage of them than of us is engaged in criminal activities. In this regard, Trump was right about “Mexicans” (I guess he actually meant random migration without following the legal procedures): even if the “native” US population had 1 in 1,000 criminals, there’s no need to “import” people who “offer” 3 in 1,000 criminals. (As Jean-Marie Le Pen once said, “I have no problem with the Italian immigration as long as they send us only the Leonardo da Vinci sort.”)
The German Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency just launched the campaign “Discrimination is forbidden – the General Equal Treatment Act protects“:
All is well, but people cannot be forced to love or like one another. No matter how many laws are enacted, discriminations will always exist, everywhere. Officially, you won’t be told you didn’t got the job because you’re fat, ugly, black, Muslim, or because you had too many earrings in your nose and tongue during the interview. But other, “better” candidates will be selected. The only way to make discrimination decline is to create trust.
Aliens always had difficulties in getting accepted–they were too visible, like a black sheep among non-black ones (yes, I know the word “black” is prohibited nowadays, but at least I didn’t use the master/slave pair.) The first Chinese in Britain. The first Japanese in America. The first Palestinian gynaecologist in a rural area in Romania. But there always were so many success stories. Take the case of Raed Arafat, a Syrian-born Romanian intensive care physician of Palestinian origin, whose visa for France was rejected in 1990, so he came to Romania; he’s now the chief of the Department of Emergency Situations (DSU) and State Secretary (NOT Secretary of State) in the Government of a country with a population that’s predominantly Christian Orthodox and, were it not for his name, nobody would think of him as not being Romanian!
If someone should make an effort to integrate, this is not discrimination! Each and every foreigner needed to make such an effort, even if they came from a country with a similar culture and language. The black sheep should make an effort–the herd of sheep only needs to be mildly benevolent. This is just how things should be.
Ask any non-Japanese living in Japan how difficult for them was to become a tenant. This is outright discrimination and xenophobia and whatnot, but them being a polite culture, they won’t say they don’t trust you, they’ll pretend there’s a barrier language: you don’t speak Japanese well enough. This is all a pretext, yet there’s no outcry in the Western world about Japan treating the foreigners–to use Erdogan’s language–“like Jews before WWII”! Because even for a visa for Japan you’d need guarantors, people the Government would trust to guarantee for you. It’s all about trust.
And building trust is not what’s happening in Western Europe. The Islamic community cannot persuade anybody (but the fools) that they’re “just Muslims” and not radicalized Islamists when 98% or the terrorist acts in Europe are committed by people crying Allahu Akbar—“An Everyday Phrase [for Muslims], Tarnished by Attacks”. The Islamic religious leaders, such as the French Council of the Muslim Faith (Conseil français du culte musulman) and the imams are not doing enough not only to condemn the separatism and the extremism, but also to educate their flock.
But maybe it’s really too late. “We need to build an Islam of enlightenment,” said Macron, but his ambassador to Sweden, Étienne de Gonneville, declared in English on the national public TV station SVT2 that “France is a Muslim country; Islam is the second religion in France, we have anywhere between 4 and 8 million French citizens who have a Muslim heritage.“
There isn’t much to hope for, then. As I was writing this, news came about the terrorist attack in Vienna, Austria–the heaviest attack in years. Where is the next terrorist attack going to happen, in Germany? (Fortunately, the 2016 Berlin truck attack cannot be reiterated, as Christmas markets will most likely be forbidden this year.) LATE EDIT: The gunman shot dead by police in Vienna has been identified as a 20-year-old “Islamist terrorist” jailed for 22 months in April 2019 after trying to join the Islamic State, but released early last December under more lenient terms for young adults. Why does leniency always apply to criminals?
Funny thing, in the past many people believed Germany to be “the powder keg of Europe,” this time not because of the bellicose Teutonic heritage, but because of the Turks “imported” in large quantities after WWII. That was a huge mistake made by the Americans, to force Germany to accept Turkish Gastarbeiter, and generally, the Americans were fools to invite Turkey in the NATO. Just judge by the level of leveraging available now to Erdogan, while he’s staging provocation after provocation in the eastern Mediterranean. However, and despite the increasing danger of a new Ottoman Empire under Erdogan’s rule, the non-Turk Muslims seem to be more dangerous. (LATE EDIT: While in Germany the confrontations between Turks and Kurds are not unusual, once again life shows that things can be worse in France; the other day Turkish and Azeri nationals were “looking for Armenians” in Lyon, now the far-right Turkish group Grey Wolves defaced a memorial to the Armenian genocide near Lyon, to the effect that the Government is to ban it.)
The number of Muslims in Europe isn’t even known. The latest Pew Research Center estimated to about 5% the share of Muslims in Europe’s population for 2016, with France at about 9%, and a number of key countries with 6-8%. A previous study from 2011 by the same think tank is contradicting itself: the Muslim population in Europe was to increase from 6% in 2010 (wait, they said 5% for 2016!) to 8% in 2030. The way things are, I am sorry to say, they’re already too many. We cannot live in Europe in terror, with soldiers at every corner of the street, like in Israel!
Maybe the fatal error that started it all was the funding by the French Government of the Great Mosque of Paris (1922-1926); as Wikipedia notes,
The Great Mosque of Paris was funded by the French state as per the law of 19 August 1920, which accorded a subvention of 500,000 francs for the construction of a Muslim Institute composed of a mosque, a library, and a meeting and study room. The law of 19 August 1920 did, however, infringe upon the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State promulgating the secular nature of the government, whose signatories had included Edouard Herriot and Aristide Briand themselves.
Well, now it’s too late, and the French law punishes as “racial hatred” any derogatory statements about those who are the inside enemy. Similar laws are in act in most European countries, and top national and EU courts of law regularly side with Salafist imams or preachers, dangerous terrorists masking as “poor Syrian or Afghan migrants” and the like.
Salafism per se is not illegal in France and it cannot be banned. Freedom of speech can be banned and it will be restricted furthermore.
We’re not anymore in the times of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre–but Islam seems to be stuck in Muhammad’s time. With the current political framework in Europe, if nothing is changed in the legal framework so that the security services and the justice be able to protect the public order and our lives, only two outcomes are possible:
- The Islamic Caliphate of Europe (to cite Matteo Salvini)
- An extremely violent form of vigilantism against Muslims, guilty or not, generated by the recurring acts of Islamic terrorism and Governments’ inaction–some people might want to take matters into their own hands.
Judge by yourself which one is the worst.
And beware that the idealization of the Islam includes the falsification of the past, such as in the idiotic Islamic propaganda by a stupid (Pulitzer or not) American, God’s Crucible (oh my, “Muslim al-Andalus flourished—a beacon of cooperation and tolerance—while proto-Europe floundered in opposition. At the beginning of the eighth century, the Arabs brought a momentous revolution in power, religion, and culture to Dark Ages Europe”), while the reality was very much different (Serafín Fanjul, historian, Islamologist and Arabist, member of the Royal Academy, is one of the most successful and respected academics in Spain, and definitely more knowledgeable than an American when it comes to the history of Spain under Arab occupation).
BONUS READING: How the veil became Muslim. The author absolutely does not take sides for or against the veil, but only recounts the birth of the veil and of its sacrality, as well as its gradual integration into society and religion. The so-called malentendu (misunderstanding) added by the editor on the cover probably relates to the fact that the veil used to be an object of theology for Christians only (see 1 Corinthians 11:4-15), whereas the Quran mostly ignores it, so it’s certainly not a pillar of Islam, and Allah does not pay much attention to it. Lots of history inside, but don’t expect a comprehensive view.
To be continued.