Never before has France found itself in such a volatile situation, a situation which other European countries are bound to experience soon. An ever-increasing proportion of its immigrant minorities have never assimilated, even after three generations, which, contrary to the claims of utopian intellectuals, is perfectly logical. Non-Europeans do not wish to assimilate or integrate into our society. It is now the native French who, having become a minority in many areas, must adapt to the newcomers by renouncing their identity in misfortune and fear. A growing number of these immigrants, especially the young ones, think of themselves as a mass of colonisers and invaders gathered under the banner of Islam. Those who have been radicalised, support both jihad and terrorism and are driven by conscious and unpunished anti-white racism are always more numerous than the others.
These foreigners by blood and at heart have, to a large extent, yielded to a conquering hatred combining resentment with a desire for revenge. Lacking, by and large, any creative talent (with their strength restricted to a solely demographic and annihilating dimension), their only purpose is to wreak destruction upon European civilisation. The notion of ‘living together’ is merely an Orwellian slogan invented by cynics and serving to conceal the threat of racial civil war, in an effort to ward it off using words.
Gilles Kepel, a political scientist specialising in Islamic issues, believes that ‘one of the major challenges’ of future elections lies in determining whether the French will be able to ‘continue living together’ by ‘projecting themselves into traditional distinctions, especially between the Left and the Right’ (Le Figaro, 30th November, 2016). He also mentions the strong possibility of people abandoning this political divide and the emergence of an ethnic one: ‘An identitarian resurgence that considers Muslims not to be genuinely French’ and, in parallel to it, ‘communitarian tensions’ characterised by a rejection of French society among the Muslims themselves. In short, all the ingredients of a human catastrophe are thus blended together.
So far, the clashes (riots and attacks) have only been the presages and early warning signs of the coming war and have been limited to confrontations between Maghrebian and black youths on one side and our public security forces on the other. At no time has the French indigenous population been involved, except in Corsica. We will be returning to this issue at a later point.
One could say that the day our indigenous population begins to defend itself, refuses to be victimised and fights back (at long last!) shall mark the true onset of the racial war.
What our domestic French secret services (DGSI)[1] fear above all are the retaliatory actions of native French groups (the so-called ‘identitarians’) against the Muslim aggressors. They want to avoid a real civil war, i.e. one involving not only the French police but also a part of our rebelling population. This suggests, on the one hand, that this war is already brewing, and on the other, that the ever-cowardly French state prefers a gentle and progressive invasion to a clash. In the eyes of the French state, what is unbearable and threatening is not so much the suicide bombings as Islamophobia. The main source of enmity, the main danger, is thus not to be found among the Muslim aggressors themselves, but stems from the risk of a violent reaction on the part of our native population — utter hogwash!
In both Le Figaro and on his own blog, Ivan Rioufol[2] speaks of ‘neo-collaborationists willing to enter into a pact with colonising Islam’, thus daring, in an unprecedented attitude, to incriminate not only Islamism but even Islam as a whole. This collaborationist position is reminiscent of the political configuration of the Vichy regime (which François Mitterrand[3] was associated with), a regime that had largely stemmed from the Left, including the communist milieu. As far as our contemporary traitors are concerned, it is necessary to be forbearing in one’s treatment of the invaders and to make sure that any dangerous resistance is persecuted. Whereas in the past, one collaborated with the Third Reich’s occupying forces, today, it is with Islam; for the invaders are no longer Nazis, but Muslims (in this regard, one resorts to the word ‘Islamists’ so as not to shock the good people of France). Whatever one may think of the fascist undertakings of the 1930s, the fact remains that the phases that lead some people to embrace collaborationism are still the same as in the past. As if by chance, both collaborationist groups, whether today or under the Occupation, stem mainly from the Left. As for the members of the resistance, they mostly come from the Right. And yet for the past decades, the media have been trying to make us believe the very opposite.
Muslims, and not just Islamists, are the ones who desire this war against our civilisation, a war that actually began — or rather recommenced — with the attacks of 11th September, 2001 in the United States. How very shocking.
This war was, in fact, initiated in the eighth century, when Muslim invaders first swept into Europe, and has been ongoing in different shapes ever since. With the Spanish Reconquista and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, which had proceeded to invade the Balkans, the Islamic populations were driven out of Europe. Today, for the first time, the war against these same populations has been reignited in the heart of the continent, yet in a completely new form; through an invasion carried out from below by immigrant populations whose numbers are too great to enable their assimilation and integration, Islam has taken the necessary organisational steps to bring its jihad to the heart of Europe.
As I have already explained in my book entitled Understanding Islam,[4] their goal has always been the same — to achieve a successful invasion of Western Europe. The strength of this primal civilisation, which is far more destructive than creative, lies in its memory, its fixedness, and the immutability of its obsession; it is a blind fanaticism that remains ignorant of the exact nature of its final ambition (a vague ‘universal caliphate’ that is actually quite similar to the communist internationalist utopia), but whose jihad, i.e. a propensity for permanent and gratuitous violence even against its own members, occupies a central position.
At the time of his presidency, Barack Obama never dared, of course, designate Islamism — let alone Islam itself! — as a danger and a challenge, nor even as a mere opponent. Surprisingly, he restricted himself to using the vague term ‘terrorism’, without ever defining it. Was he incapacitated by his personal religious convictions, or is it possible that he fell prey to an identity crisis? Could it be, perhaps, that he secretly sympathises with Islam?
During his farewell visit to Europe on 19th November, 2016, following Donald Trump’s victory, Mr Obama dubbed Mrs Merkel, the German Chancellor, the ‘guardian of the values of the West and democracy’. This pompous praise was a reference to the fact that she had forced her own citizens to welcome more than one million ‘migrants’, most of whom were fake refugees and included a Muslim majority, without ever consulting her people. Referring to Trump, considered horribly populistic, xenophobic and averse to immigration, Obama congratulated Merkel for ‘fighting for the same democratic values’ as he himself does. Sheer lies and deception! In no way are these people democrats.
1
TN:
2
TN: Born in Nantes on 12th September, 1952, Ivan Rioufol is a French journalist, editorialist and author/essayist whose criticism of Islam and Muslim immigration has led to his being persecuted by the prevailing ideology and its supporters. He describes himself as being Catholic. In addition to his main occupation, he also works as a chronicler at RTL.
3
TN: François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand (26th October, 1916–8th January, 1996) was a French politician who served as President of France from 1981 to 1995. The First Secretary of the French Socialist Party, he was a highly controversial statesman who initially chose to support the Vichy regime.