The Green Mayor

As I announced in my previous post, the Apéro of September 4 will take place at the Place de la Bourse, in the 2nd arrondissement of Paris. An article at François Desouche relates that Jacques Boutault, mayor of the 2nd arrondissement and a member of the Green Party, sent a dissenting letter to the Prefect of Paris when he learned that his territory was to be the site of the anti-sharia demonstration:

As mayor of the 2nd arrondissement, I feel I must inform you that I firmly oppose, in the arrondissement that I administer, a demonstration that, contrary to its name, makes a mockery of the foundations of our Republic by dividing the citizens of France on religious matters, and that presents itself as a new "anti-Islam Apéro".

In addition, it seems to me that the object of this demonstration presents a serious risk to public order: recent examples of "sausage and wine" Apéros, organized in Paris, Lyons and other cities of France, are proof of this.

While I have confidence in any decision you make, and you alone have the responsibility for such decisions, I feel it is important for you to know my position.

Yours truly,
Jacques Boutault, Mayor
2nd arrondissement of Paris

Note: The latest is that the Paris Prefect has no intention of banning the Apéro "against the Islamist offensive" organized by Riposte Laïque. This, despite the fact that the Prefect had banned the June 18 Apéro.

Mayor Jacques Boutault, according to Le Figaro, had requested that the Apéro be banned because it was identical to the June 18 event that had been supported by the right-wing patriotic Bloc Identitaire. As of now, the Bloc is not participating on September 4.

In 2002 Jacques Boutault became known as "le Khmaire Vert" for having refused to allow children to sing the Marseillaise in his City Hall on November 11.

Shouldn't Boutault have been removed from his post for such anti-French activity? What kind of lesson does that send to children?

Note: "Khmaire Vert" = "Khmer Green". Note too that "maire" = "mayor"

One Figaro reader comments:

- This Boutault, the little "khmaire vert", is quite simply an authentic mini-dictator, who cannot tolerate the exercise and application of the Rights of Man, article 18 in this case. These types of left-wingers want to abolish the freedom of speech of those who do not think as they do. All of this will end in civil war. You'll see. They will pay a heavy price for their ideological blindness.

According to Marianne2, he eventually relented and allowed the singing of the national hymn. Like any good ecologist, "he's mad about organic foods and bike riding, but hates neckties, the nation, parking lots and marriage."

I suggest that all participants bring organic sausage, organic wine from organic grapes, gluten-free bread, and cruelty-free sardines. Do not drive your pollution-generating jalopies. Instead, walk, or bring your bike, or hire a horse - just be sure to have a pooper-scooper. If you are married, be sure your wedding band is not visible. What will the mayor do when he sees all those French flags? If they are made of organic cotton, he will have to swallow his rancor. Remove your neckties - but remember they will be useful when the time comes to strangle him.

Not surprisingly, Riposte Laïque has posted several articles challenging Mayor Boutault to explain himself further. Chantal Macaire, of RL, asks:

Does this mean that you are for the installation of sharia in France? In the eyes of the organizers of the Republican Apéro, sharia is not compatible with the values of our Republic or with the Rights of Man, and that is the reason for this demonstration, open to all French citizens - whatever their faith - who do not want a France that is obscurantist, infiltrated by Salafist or Wahhabite Islam.

Does this mean that for you, sharia is compatible with our democracy? This would betray an unforgivable blindness and a dangerous lack of maturity in a young man elected to represent this democracy and to defend it. (...)

She reproaches him for invoking Article 18 of the Rights of Man:

What is shameful, is that you hide behind Article 18 in order to interpret our poster in an untruthful way. You quote: "... is incompatible with actions that have as their goal, in one way or another, to stigmatize or to seek to exclude a part of the citizenry, on grounds of philosophical, cultural or religious differences."

Where do you see that we are excluding, or stigmatizing? The invitation to join the Apéro is aimed at French citizens attached to the Republic, whoever they may be - citizens who, normally, recognize themselves in the values of "liberty, equality, fraternity" and "laïcité", values that you seem to point the finger at (very paradoxical, coming from an elected official!) (...)

Another contributor to RL, André Vianès is concise:

This local potentate is a juridical illiterate. A demonstration cannot be banned unless it creates a public disturbance. (It cannot be banned) for the crime of having an opinion (or for blasphemy). There is no public disturbance. The only disturbance might come from a counter-demonstration (...) that cannot be controlled. The only disturbance to public order is the provocation by the Green mayor.

The complaints of Jacques Boutault have put the Apéro in the limelight, according to RL. French readers can check out this page for a list of links to websites that have called attention to the September 4 demonstrations, thanks to the remarks of the "Khmaire Vert".

September 4, 2010

The BIG news this week will be the latest Apéro organized by Riposte Laïque. If you were not around a few months ago and need some filling in, an "apéro", short for "apéritif", is like a before-dinner cocktail, but in this context it has taken on the aspect of a major demonstration against the Islamization of France and for the values of the Republic. The "apéro" last June 18 was banned by the authorities from its original meeting place in order not to anger the neighborhood's ruling Muslims, and moved to the Champs-Elysées. Also banned was the drinking of wine, with grape juice serving as a sorry substitute. However, sausages were allowed. The point of wine and sausage was to protest the subversion by Islam of French civilization, including the food and drinks we all associate with France (click Apéro label below for more information).

Last June's Apéro put the very republican website Riposte Laïque on the map, and the outdoor demonstration made headlines all over Europe, with other countries also organizing their own version of a patriotic picnic.

One of the major contributors to Riposte Laïque, Maxime Lépante, will be in the United States during the whole month of September, meeting with the organizers of the opposition to the Ground Zero mosque (another major event that coincides with France's Apéro). Lépante is the now-famous photographer who took numerous photos of Muslims praying on Friday afternoon in the streets of the 18th arrondissement of Paris (click Barbès label below for a review).

The latest Apéro will take place in six French cities - Paris, Bordeaux, Lyons, Strasbourg, Toulon, and Toulouse.

This time beer is banned, inebriated individuals will be removed, and only French flags will be allowed to fly, in order to show unity despite political differences. (It isn't clear if wine is allowed this time.)

The Apéro is being held on September 4 - an important date in French history - on that date in 1870, one hundred forty years ago, the Third Republic was proclaimed. This came after the disastrous Franco-Prussian War that brought down Napoleon III, unified Germany, and (to the frustration of many) dashed hopes for a restoration of the monarchy, which in 1870 was still a possibility.

However one may feel about the Republic or about Riposte Laïque with its left-wing roots, its Phrygian bonnets, its tedious and potentially dangerous feminism and egalitarianism, and its stubborn anti-clericalism, it has to be acknowledged that some members of RL have awakened to the real dangers stalking their country and to the appalling and treasonous behavior of their elected officials. In a mess such as the one the French find themselves in today, we have to be grateful for small favors. Many politicians have disappointed us - Philippe de Villiers, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, Jean-Marie Le Pen, all of whom attracted and nurtured the hopes of many Frenchmen eager to save themselves and their country. Many religious leaders have both shocked and discouraged us - priests and rabbis who grovel to the imams, cryptic statements from a very intelligent, but overly-cautious Pope. So we may be disappointed again, but it is worth a try, and if I were in France, I would attend one of these parties, armed with good French food and drink.

The poster at the top is the call to resist. The struggle is portrayed in feministic terms - the Republic with her Phrygian bonnet wrestles with a burka-covered Muslim.



The organizer of the event is Christine Tasin, a contributor to Riposte Laïque, and also president of a group called Résistance Républicaine that she founded not long ago in the wake of the successful June 18 Apéro.

The website of Résistance Républicaine is undergoing some maintenance, but here is the message from the general secretary, Gérard Couvert:

The republican "apéritif" of September 4, organized by Résistance Républicaine in six cities of France, marks our will and our capacity for organization, even during an unfavorable time of the year.

It is of primordial importance that each one of us mobilize.

Nonetheless, this event is only the prelude to a year of struggle; our enemies understand this and are becoming more incisive and more threatening. In so doing they are only re-enforcing our determination.

The "reconquête" begins on September 4.

Note: "Reconquête" = Reconquista

Many groups, associations and websites are joining in the resistance movement and calling on the people to come out on September 4. These groups are listed in French at the link provided above. Among them are SITA and Bivouac-ID, two sites that I have often consulted.

Below a cartoon from Riposte Laïque showing the chairman of the French Socialist Party, Martine Aubry, sitting on top of the Republic, waving an EU-Islamic flag, and proclaiming that "Sarkozy is destroying France and her values."

The irony is that Sarkozy IS destroying France with the same values as the Socialist Party! It's just that he disbanded a few illegal gypsy camps, and made idle threats about deporting a few criminals, and that is sufficient for the Socialists to bemoan the racism and xenophobia of the man who opened the borders, shoved his country into the EU, ordered his police not to harm immigrant criminals, and proclaimed "métissage" the new duty of all good Frenchmen.



Much more will follow. The amount of commentary at Riposte Laïque is unmanageable - a small selection will have to do.

One final note: I had originally thought that the Paris demonstration would be held in the neighborhood of La Goutte d'Or, where the previous June 18 Apéro was scheduled to meet before the authorities forced a change. But it is instead being held at Place de la Bourse in the 2nd arrondissement. The French Left (all the groups and parties combined) is also holding an "anti-Sarkozy" demonstration on September 4. Their goal is to make Sarkozy repent for his cruelty to foreigners (or something like that). In addition, Ramadan is still on until September 11 (another fateful date!), and Islamic demonstrations are scheduled to take place in Paris, during this time.

I will do my best to sort this out. I truly hope that Riposte Laïque can bring the people out in great numbers. A big turnout would encourage others, and the movement could grow into something significant.

Gypsy Rondo - Part 2

What exactly did the Pope say on August 22 that set the various MSM websites, blogs and paper press ablaze with condemnations? And in what way were his words deformed by the press, leading many Catholics to reproach him for saying something that he did not say? Conversely leading some to condemn him for saying what he did in fact say?

Zenit, a website that publishes verbatim the words of the Pope has posted his speech before and after the Angelus on August 22. We are concerned only with the part of his speech that followed the Angelus. He greeted in different languages the pilgrims who had journeyed to his residence at Castel Gandolfo. Then he said in French:

"I cordially greet the French-speaking pilgrims, in particular the students of the parish of Sainte-Anne de la Butte-aux-Cailles, of Paris. The liturgical texts of this day tell us again that all men are called to salvation. It is also an invitation to learn how to welcome legitimate human diversities, in the manner of Jesus who came to bring together people of all nations and all languages. Dear parents, may you educate your children in universal brotherhood. May the Virgin Mary accompany you in the preparation of the school year that is approaching! Happy Sunday to everyone!"

Below is the French text:

Je salue cordialement les pèlerins francophones, en particulier les étudiants de la paroisse Sainte-Anne de la Butte-aux-Cailles, de Paris. Les textes liturgiques de ce jour nous redisent que tous les hommes sont appelés au salut. C'est aussi une invitation à savoir accueillir les légitimes diversités humaines, à la suite de Jésus venu rassembler les hommes de toute nation et de toute langue. Chers parents, puissiez-vous éduquer vos enfants à la fraternité universelle. Que la Vierge Marie vous accompagne dans la préparation de la rentrée scolaire qui approche ! Bon dimanche à tous!

Here is how a website called Catholic Culture reported his words, under the headline, "Pope Chides France on race policy"

In pointed remarks to French pilgrims who attended his midday audience on Sunday, August 22, Pope Benedict XVI said that parents should “educate your children to universal brotherhood.”

The Pope’s comments seemed clearly intended to reflect on the French government’s systematic campaign to expel Gypsies, which drew a rebuke from the Vatican last week. Pope Benedict said that the Sunday Scripture readings were “an invitation to know how to accept legitimate differences among humans, just like Jesus came to pull together men from every nation and speaking every language."

This is assuming that what he meant was that we must learn how to welcome (or accept?) people from all nations despite their differences because these differences are legitimate. (Note that the press used the verb "accept", but the French verb is "accueillir", "to welcome".)

But that really makes no sense. We know perfectly well that differences among peoples are "legitimate". The question is one of compatibility with other cultures, specifically French culture.

Le Salon Beige, a Catholic website that firmly supports the Pope on principle, reads the text differently. First the author Michel Janva points out that it is the Pope's duty to remind us that all men are called to salvation, and that any immigration policy must respect human dignity:

But it is important to note that immigrants (even legal ones) have duties towards the host country, and that heads of State have a duty to give priority to their own people.

Finally, it should be noted that all diversities are not legitimate (Benedict XVI, who in general knows what words mean and who does not speak unless he has something to say, here speaks of "legitimate human diversities"). Therefore, it is permitted to dismantle communities founded on illegitimate diversities. If the nomadic lifestyle is, a priori, legitimate, it is also clear that the redirecting of water, electricity, and other public services by certain illicit camps is in no way legitimate. I may add that I find extremely suspect that the "big time media" are only interested in Benedict's statements when there is some way of twisting them to make them useful in a political struggle...

However one takes the Pope's words, they do not seem to be of such overwhelming import that the media, the politicians and the talking heads of France have apoplectic fits and accuse the Pope indirectly of being a Nazi, which is what one of Sarkozy's advisers did. His name is Alain Minc (photo below), and for now his name is mud, but the situation is so crazy to begin with, that he comes across (to me) as a robot programmed to denounce the Church and to support Sarkozy's expulsion of the Roma which is a phony scheme at best. Others will (with some justification) see him as a typical Jewish government official who pulls the Holocaust card whenever he can. Here is some of what he said:

"I want to explode a little. This German Pope? To speak as he has done? In French? You can debate all you want on the matter of the Roma, but not a German Pope. John-Paul II, perhaps, not him."


But this makes no sense either. If Minc evokes the Holocaust, then he must think the Pope is in favor of the expulsions. There is no reason to believe such a thing nor is there any evidence that Minc read the Pope's words as Le Salon Beige read them, i.e., as a very nuanced statement on legitimate diversities. Therefore, he is condemning the Pope simply for talking about immigration and expulsion independant of what he (the Pope) is actually saying.

Minc's words greatly angered the Catholics. A Christian watchdog association - Observatoire de la Christianophobie, has launched a petition calling for Minc's resignation. The petition contains this paragraph:

"I find (your words) perfectly scandalous. From what you say, no German has the right to talk about immigration, on grounds that it was in Germany that the crimes of the National-Socialist regime were organized."

In addition Osservatore-Vaticano announces that Nicolas Sarkozy is distancing himself from Alain Minc (lucky Minc). Presidential spokesmen have said that Minc is not Sarkozy's full-time adviser, and that the president only sees him about once every trimester.

Note: This seems to be a quickly contrived way of getting Sarkozy off the hook. (Except that he created the hook he is hanging from. I maintain my belief that Minc only did what he was supposed to do.)

Even Salon Beige readers wonder if Minc's remarks were really spontaneous:

- And these sporadic pieces of advice are of course a free service?

- Sarko the Weather Vane has no idea which Saint to pray to.


Returning for a moment to the Pope's remarks, Front National vice-president Bruno Gollnisch (left) at first took them to be a criticism of France, then changed his mind when he read the text itself instead of the reports in the press. Salon Beige readers engage in a long discussion on Gollnisch's credentials as a true Catholic.

Analyzing the Pope's often cryptic comments, reconciling his comments with the daily situation in France, and choosing candidates in terms of Catholic doctrine, is an on-going hardship for French Catholics. Even though Le Salon Beige is traditional Catholic, it still seems to adhere to the principles of Vatican II, at least to some degree, simply because the Pope adheres to Vatican II.

I do not believe the Pope's remarks were earth-shattering at all, but I do wish he would be more straightforward on the issues confronting France. So long as he remains vaguely multi-cultural, and ambivalent on hot-button issues that are ripping the French State apart, Catholics themselves are going to be torn apart. They go against their faith if they vote for Sarkozy or the Socialist Party, and they feel guilty if they vote for the Front National. A genuine French statesman, patriotic, a defender of his people, pre-Vatican II Catholic, pro-Western and enlightened in the best sense of the term, is sorely needed and nowhere to be found, for now.

For those interested, the Catholic doctrine on immigration is discussed here - it's an interesting web page (in English). You will see that the Church doctrine is quite strict on the issue of immigrants' responsibilities.

Below, a regional newspaper clip describing the return of five Rumanian workers to France, following their "expulsion". The headline reads "They left for Rumania on Friday, they return today." The gist of this story is that they did not know they were illegally in France. A Rumanian intermediary apparently exploited the five carpenters. The French authorities expelled them, but welcomed them back. Note that this story is a bit different from the tale of the Roma.

I applaud anyone who managed to get through this post. So much ado about nothing. Except that it shows the insanity of not being willing or able to face the political and cultural realities squarely (this includes the Pope, I am very sorry to say), and the tower of Babel that ensues.

Gypsy Rondo

As far as I can tell there are three basic lines of thought on the presence and/or expulsion of Rumanian gypsies in France: 1) They are the victims of French racism, 2) They are illegals and should be expelled, 3) They are simply being used by Sarkozy as a convenient scapegoat to obtain votes in the next presidential election, while the real threats to French security and identity - the Muslims and blacks - remain untouchable.

I think I go along with the third hypothesis, and to a lesser degree with the second. If they are illegal, of course they should be expelled, but is this the priority France wants and needs? If they commit crimes, they should be jailed and/or deported back to Rumania, but the laws of the EU allow them to walk back into France with little hassle.

Sarkozy needs to convince people he is tough on crime and tough on illegal immigrants, but we know he cannot be tough on blacks or Muslims, so this leaves the Rumanian gypsies as the obvious scapegoat of choice. However, this does not mean I favor any sort of special indulgence for them or any form of racial blackmail designed to make the French feel guiltier than they already feel.


These are excerpts from an article by Dominique de Villepin (left), former prime minister under Jacques Chirac and now a presidential candidate for 2012. Villepin espouses completely the multi-cultural point of view that denounces France as racist and cruel towards the gypsies. The irony here is too blatant - he is denouncing the same multi-cultural, politically correct, racially mixed France created by his opponent Nicolas Sarkozy and his former boss Jacques Chirac simply because of a feigned expulsion of gypsies from French territory. Anyway... here is his denunciation, from Le Monde, via François Desouche:

"All it took was one speech in Grenoble, one summer, just one summer, and everything tipped over, everything from the fight against crime to national indignity," stresses Villepin. "I say 'national' because the President of the Republic represents all of us. If you have any doubts, you have only to read the foreign press, from the United States to India (...) to measure the shock people felt when they saw the land of human rights - France, show an unrecognizable face."

Note: This is in reference to the speech Sarkozy made in Grenoble after the riots there this past July (see my post). He stated that he would expel from France those criminals who threatened or harmed policemen. The world (including American publications such as Newsweek) joined in a collective knee-jerk reaction of indignation at such extreme racist measures. While Sarkozy was no doubt bluffing, the rest of the world was merely expressing the standard, predictable anti-racist dogma.

Villepin himself acknowledges that Sarkozy's plans could not result in anything concrete, since there already are laws on the books that cover the revocation of citizenship for criminals.

"And yet there are solutions. We must come together, especially the mayors and the associations, we must mobilize with reason and determination all the instruments of prevention and punishment, as we recognize the scope of the social, economic, and educational questions."

Note: He means that the standard of living and the level of education of Roma and other immigrants has to improve. As if France has not wasted millions on welfare and assistance.

Then then launches into a cry of despair:

"Nothing has changed, and yet everything has changed. Changed the way we see others - Roma, nomads, immigrants, Muslims. Changed, the way France is perceived, a country that used to have values and principles. Changed, the way we see ourselves, divided between French citizens and 'citizens of foreign origin', even though the first article of our Constitution ensures 'equality before the law for all citizens without distinction of origin, race or religion.'

"These are not just small details, for we cannot forget, over and beyond the indignity, where these games can lead us. The philosopher calls it 'an error'... No! It is a failing. A moral failing, a collective fault committed in our name, against the Republic and against France. Today there is a shameful stain on our flag." (...)

His essay is a rather comical example of guilt and self-flagellation. It is not possible for me to say if he truly believes what he says, or if he is playing the race and guilt cards in order to garner sympathy and votes. His words encapsulate the bleeding heart mentality of both Left and Establishment Right, but it is unlikely it will win him any votes. It is even unlikely he will get to the first round of the 2012 election, much less the second.


Besides Dominique de Villepin, Jean-Pierre Raffarin (left), also a former prime minister, and currently an official of the UMP party stigmatized what he called "absurd proposals" on crime prevention, adding that the majority UMP was on a "right-wing slippery slope that had to be corrected". He called on Prime Minister François Fillon to speak out and "reaffirm the values of equilibrium of a majority that must move forward with the left side of its brain also."

Note: He is as delusional as Villepin. Or, more likely, all of this has some electoral strategy behind it.

Diametrically opposed to Villepin is Bruno Gollnisch, vice-president of the Front National, quoted by Le Salon Beige:

"A majority of Frenchmen regard the dismantling of improvised gypsy camps and the expulsion of a certain number of Roma favorably. But these great Sarkozian maneuvers have, essentially, an electoral purpose. For these costly 'voluntary expulsions' (sic) serve no purpose: the interested parties, as the police and gendarmes have admitted, have no qualms about coming right back, since the French government has seen to it that there is no way of preventing them from coming back. Some, eternally naïve and future cuckolds, are enthusiastic again, as they were in 2007, over the 'crime-fighting' posture of Nicolas Sarkozy, whose record on fighting crime and immigration is simply catastrophic.

"It was he who, by promoting the Treaty of Lisbon, opened the borders to all nationals of Central Europe. As the association Terre d'Asile (Land of Asylum) never tires of saying: by virtue of this treaty millions of Roma from Rumania, Hungary, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia have, like the other citizens of these countries, acquired the right to enter France without a visa or authorization, just like Belgians, Italians, etc... And what we are seeing is just the beginning of this transhumance! The conclusion is obvious: nothing can be done until we re-negotiate the European treaties and restore our sovereignty on our own territory. All the rest is just a smokescreen for the near-sighted and amnesiac voter of the Right."

One Salon Beige reader submitted these thoughts:

- The gypsies are being used to demonstrate the supposed "firmness" of the immigration policy. That's normal. It's easier: not only are the Roma mostly Christian (a scapegoat par excellence), but above all they don't have powerful international lobbies behind them or terrorist networks that can intervene if need be. You can hit on them without any risk and pretend to be taking drastic measures. Nonetheless, the gypsies are Christians and European citizens, which makes all this hubbub seem ridiculous and absurd.

Meanwhile the "racaille" (ghetto dwellers) are still at it.

Note: This post has taken me longer than anticipated. There is much more to say - about Sarkozy's speech in Grenoble, the reaction to the so-called expulsions, the remarks of Pope Benedict, etc... Much of the commentary indicates that everyone knows Sarkozy is merely priming himself for the 2012 election. Everyone knows too that the gypsies are a very convenient pretext for a show of force that will amount to very little substantively. Some are saying that Sarkozy wants the Left to win the upcoming senatorial election. With a Socialist Senate, Sarkozy will be better placed to win the presidential, as the population usually tries to "balance" the parties in power - as if it makes any difference at this point.

With this post I have changed from "Roms" to "Roma" as a designation of Rumanian gypsies. I see that most of the English-speaking press uses Roma. According to Wikipedia there are several different designations including Romanis, Romanies, etc...

More later...

Observe Ramadan, Or Else...

Here are two tales from Le Point, featured also at Le Salon Beige and François Desouche:

He was having lunch on the terrace of a restaurant in downtown Lyons, during the weekend of August 15, when three young persons assaulted him because he was not respecting the Ramadan fast. This man, a father, of Senegalese origin now residing in Vénissieux, was struck on the head with a glass bottle, then with a chair. Rushed to the hospital, with a skull fracture, he had to undergo surgery. The assault was filmed by a surveillance camera, but the poor quality of the images did not allow for an identification of the assailants. The prosecution has opened a preliminary inquiry. (...)

Three days later, a young Jewish woman filed a complaint after being assaulted in a supermarket in Toulouse. The victim declared that she was attacked by two adolescents who reproached her for buying food during the fast. The young woman then revealed that she was Jewish, which only increased the anger of her attackers who called her "dirty Jew", struck her on the head, causing her to fall heavily to the ground. A guard witnessed the scene without intervening. Questioned by the investigators on the reasons for his passiveness, the man explained that he was respecting Ramadan and that he was in a hurry to leave so that he could eat at sundown.

The thing to note about this is that the two victims were not necessarily Muslims - we know the woman was Jewish. Regarding the man from Senegal, his religion isn't stated, but the point is that young Muslims, unlike earlier immigrants, have become fanatical to such a degree that they will attack ANYONE who does not observe Ramadan.

An American in Poitiers

I have written several articles on the city of Poitiers, its religious and cultural heritage, and the current Islamization process that signals a major turning point in its history. The building of a mosque (or mosques) in the city where Charles Martel defeated the Muslims in 732 reveals the dramatic reversal of values that France has undergone in 1300 years. But most of these radical changes to the national pride of the country have been recent - since the 1960's. Before that, no matter what the upheavals, wars, revolutions, or cultural shifts, France still stayed recognizably France, her towns, her countryside, her Christian roots, her literary output and her artistic preeminence were seemingly eternal.

The building of mosques, the opening of the borders to Islam, the blatant abrogation of the 1905 law separating Church and State, all constitute something new, something that has never happened before, unless you want to consider the Occupation by the Germans as a comparable event. But the analogy does not hold up, since there was a declared war against Germany, an armed resistance against Germany, and ultimately a surrender by Germany.

I missed the following video when it was posted in August 2009 at Islamisation, the website administered by Joachim Véliocas. The video tells us nothing we don't already know, but it is in English, made by an American who visited Poitiers and saw for himself the changes described above.

Sarkozy the Anti-Frenchman

This video, from Novopress, is in two parts. The first part is from a notorious speech delivered in Palaiseau, near Paris, in 2008, in which Nicolas Sarkozy informed his people that they had to embrace "métissage" (intermarriage, miscegenation), or suffer dire consequences. I reported on this major event in December 2008 (note that the link to François Desouche in that post no longer works). The second part is from a speech in Saudi Arabia (date not certain, but it was after he became president) in which he proclaims that nothing is more dangerous than an identity that has been humiliated.

Here is an approximate translation. This version of the Palaiseau speech differs somewhat from my earlier translation, not in substance, but in choice of words. You will note the menacing tone of the first part compared to the friendly reassurances of the second:

"The objective is to meet the challenge of "métissage". It is not a choice. It is an obligation, an imperative. We cannot do otherwise. We would run the risk of having to confront considerable problems. We must change; we will change. We will change everything at the same time everywhere in the country: in the administration of the State, in education, in the political parties, and we will be accountable for the results. If this cannot be accomplished through voluntary efforts, it will be necessary for the Republic to resort to even more stringent measures."

"My friends of Saudi Arabia, this is not about imposing one and only one model of civilization. That would be repeating once again the tragic errors that in the past caused so much misery. It would mean a denial of identities. It would revive not peace or fraternity, but violence. For nothing is more dangerous than a wounded identity, a humiliated identity. A humiliated identity is a radicalized identity."

And nothing is more dangerous than a leader who humiliates his own people, except a population that has had enough of being humiliated.

René Galinier - Update

The incarceration of René Galinier continues to make headlines. On Tuesday (August 17), the District Attorney of the Appeals Court of Montpellier asked that "Papy René" be kept in prison.

Also on Tuesday, there was a demonstration in support of René Galinier in his village of Nissan-lez-Ensérune (above) and in front of the prison where he is being held.

The Ligue du Midi, the regional party of patriots mentioned in my previous article on Galinier, is demanding the immediate release of René Galinier and the end of all legal action against him:

The Ligue du Midi declares that "Today the system only leaves two options open to decent people: either get killed or go to jail. The first is what happened to the tobacco shop worker in Montpellier when she did not defend herself, the second is what has befallen René Galinier who did not tolerate an illegitimate break-in. Laxness and cowardice on the part of the authorities are the only causes of these tragedies."

Note: On August 11, Le Figaro reported the brutal murder of a young woman, 22, who was working in her mother's tobacco shop in what was considered to be a "peaceful" neighborhood of Montpellier. A customer found the body with multiple stab wounds in the thorax and abdomen, lying in the back room, adhesive tape on her mouth. There was no sign that she resisted. How could she resist a thug or thugs if she had no weapon?

A paper petition demanding the release of René Galinier was initiated shortly after his arrest by his village of Nissan-lez-Ensérune, and has 7000 signatures as of now, said defense attorney Bousquet. An Internet petition also demanding his release has nearly 8000 signatures, and there are 2000 members of the Facebook group "Soutien à papy René Galinier le septuagénaire incarcéré".

In another show of support, UMP deputy Christian Vanneste has written a letter to Minister of Justice Michèle Alliot-Marie requesting that she release René Galinier.


A reminder that deputy Vanneste (left), though a member of the UMP party, has had his differences with Nicolas Sarkozy. Vanneste, a practicing Catholic, opposed special privileges for homosexuals, including gay marriage. He delivered a speech in the National Assembly in 2005 explaining his views and was fined and sued several times over two or three years. He was finally acquitted of all charges, though he is considered a "homophobe" by the gay community. Many Catholics wonder why he stayed in the UMP party, which is openly pro-gay rights. I think the answer is that he is basically what we would call a "liberal", but not on certain issues, such as the non-negotiable points of the Church. His letter is a bit long. Here are some excerpts:

Madame Minister:

Because you have always represented to me the greatest sense of the State and of republican values, I call on you today regarding the disastrous effect on the population caused by the continued detention of René Galinier.

It seems to me more indispensable than ever to restore confidence in the French Justice system. It is not just one domain among others, but rather the most important mission of the State.

This confidence rests on the certitude that Justice is equal for all (...) and that it is coherent. Detaining René Galinier reveals a double incoherence and a great inequality.

He explains that this arrest is incoherent with regard to the current prison policy of the government that aims to reduce the prison population. He points out that this man is old, and that he did what he did in the context of a burglary of which he was the victim. He goes on to the "racist" aspects of the case:

Furthermore, he appears to be incarcerated because of his act and, according to television information, because of certain "racist" remarks he is supposed to have made. In other words, you are combining in this matter a useless preventative detention with a punishment that serves as an example to others, even before he has been judged.

Note: He is being held because he shot at the two women, but this detention is also serving as a warning to others who might be tempted to make racist remarks.

He goes on to cite numerous criminals who have been released, whose crimes were far more serious than anything Galinier did: a man who raped a minor, two men with hammers who attacked police, and, going back in time, several extreme left-wing terrorists and assassins that the French government chose not to pursue.

Thus, we now have to know who is powerful and who is lowly before the courts can decide favorably or unfavorably. At a time when the neighborhoods (i.e. ghettos) are subjected to the law of drug traffickers seeking to evince the police, at a time when more and more old people are attacked in their homes in "home-jackings", is it acceptable that our Justice system is more clement towards a youth who attacks policemen that towards an old man, more a victim than a perpetrator?

The readers' responses to Vanneste's letter are on the whole very positive. There is one interesting comment from someone named Sylvie in which we learn that René Galinier is very ill:

- Yesterday morning (August 18) I sent an e-mail to President Sarkozy, urging that he release this honest citizen Monsieur Galinier, citing the health problems that beset him.

I explained that this old gentleman of 73 needed to receive chemotherapy and to continue medical treatments, but it had to be at home, not in prison. Every year cancer kills millions of people and Monsieur Galinier is afflicted with this disease.

According to our current laws, a seriously ill person cannot be kept in prison. He must be hospitalized or taken home with medical assistance.

Monsieur Galinier must be released. Otherwise the people will take the law into their own hands. There is the risk of riots if he is not released and you know what public opinion is - in the next election things may turn against you if the voters choose the Front National. Marine Le Pen could receive a double-digit score in 2012 (between 20 and 25%). Be advised! The French people are tired of the incompetence and the insecurity that reign everywhere. They demand a return to public order and to the right to defend oneself against thugs. The two women who broke into Monsieur Galinier's home are illegals in France... They should be sent back to Rumania. (...)

Note: It's hard to say if she is really afraid Marine gets a lot of votes, or if she is hoping she does. Several readers expressed fear of the Front National, if Sarkozy doesn't act quickly. They don't seem to realize that Sarkozy's UMP party has acquiesced on most if not all of his Socialist agenda. Nor are Vanneste's readers able to conceive of the FN as anything other than undesirable. But then, how do they regard the UMP? As "conservative"? As "middle-of-the-road"? As the only hope for France?

Here is another comment:

- If René Galinier were not an ethnic Frenchman, he would already be free, because there would have been massive demonstrations in front of the prison, cars set on fire everywhere. The funny thing about this, if I may say so, is the observation by the prosecutor who said that the defense was not proportionate to the attack. So in the mind of this lawyer, it goes without saying that it would have been better if Galinier had been killed, before shooting back.

There were also a few comments hostile to Christian Vanneste, accusing him of supporting the UMP, except every now and then when some issue like this one arises.

Below, the demonstration in front of Béziers prison where René Galinier is being held.


Since the two women who broke into René Galinier's home were Rumanian gypsies, and since some gypsies have been expelled from France amidst cries of "racism!", it is interesting to note this item from Le Salon Beige:

Ilie Dinca, head of the national agency for Roms was questioned by the Rumanian press agency Hotnews:

- Dani Rockhoff: Is it discriminatory to send large groups of Rom citizens back to Rumania?

- Ilie Dinca: So long as they recognize that they will return and that they agree to this sum of 300 euro per adult and 100 euro per child, I say thank you to the French authorities who gave these Rumanian citizens of Rom ethnicity the chance to spend their vacation in Rumania. They paid for the air fare and they paid these sums. I am convinced that those who want to return will return.

If I understand this correctly, expulsion from France means a free vacation back home in Rumania and then a return to France!!! All expenses paid!

Since I managed to get on the topic of expulsions, I'll close with this item from Yves Daoudal:

"In absolute urgency", the government sent Ali Ibrahim El Soudany, a "radical Islamist imam" back to Egypt on Thursday. He had already been expelled in January.

The communiqué from Brice Hortefeux is identical to the one from January 7.

A stupid question: What is the point of expelling him every eight months?

It's true that the same scenario is used for the Roms. Except with them, they're given money so they can come back with their cousins. It's nicer.

Conquering Ramadan

The title can be taken two ways: 1) We are conquering Ramadan by expelling Islam from Western countries OR 2) Ramadan is conquering us. The first is wishful thinking for now. It's the second meaning that has impelled at least two writers to express their alarm over the fierce pro-Ramadan campaign that has been in full swing in France for several weeks. Unlike previous years, this latest glut of posters, events, publicity and articles in the MSM, all extolling the wonders of the Muslim "fasting" period has been a louder, more insistent and more persuasive propaganda effort than ever before. Here are some thoughts from Catholic writer Bernard Antony. The text has been adapted and abridged:

Some comments must be made regarding the appearance everywhere of thousands of billboards reading "proudly halal" as Ramadan begins:

First, there is the conquering tone of the operation and its slogan. You would have to be a masochist with an avid desire for halal foods not to notice it.

Second, it allows those who do not know Islam very well to understand that the Muslim fast is above all an occasion for a great nocturnal feast, with a meal before sunrise and a meal after sunset, giving rise to the great rejoicing of the daily breaking of the fast. (...)

The third point is that the operation coincides with a major media and cultural campaign to condition the French people to accept the Islamic power. So we find that Libération, the daily paper of all anarchist-leftist bobos, the daily paper happy to print any and all anti-Christian sarcasm and blasphemy, a paper that was rescued by the Rothschild bank, now runs the headline: "France enters the period of Ramadan". France? Nothing less! (...)

But what is even sadder, since it is more perfidious than Libération, is that we read in the "good media" (meaning the Catholic press) a profusion of articles that range from the misinformation of approximate truths about the past to an insanely euphoric attempt at twisting the current reality of Islam in order to make it appear to be compatible with Christianity (...)

Note: He cites La Croix and Documentation catholique as two examples of the perfidious Catholic press.

This accompanies and legitimizes the profusion of effusive statements from the bishops and clerics about "our Muslim brothers". But the "Muslim brothers" do not solicit this attention, and remain radically impervious to any reciprocity towards the irremissibly guilty Christians (...)

Simultaneously, on the extreme Right, those who long for the days of the grand mufti of Jerusalem Hadj Amin Al-Husseini, the great supplier of Bosnian SS, and the admirers of Carlos, are rejoicing at the advances of liberating Islam.

Note: Husseini (1895 - 1974) was grand mufti of Jerusalem during the British Mandate, and was close to Adolph Hitler, and later Yasser Arafat. A book about him is discussed at Wikipedia. Carlos the Jackal is the topic of this Wikipedia entry.

When he speaks of the "extreme Right", he does not specify names. He has tense relations with Jean-Marie Le Pen, but it isn't clear if Le Pen is alluded to here, or someone else. He may be speaking generally, of those people who harbor a nostalgia for the good old days of Hitler...

Last but not least, Bernard Antony relates a personal story:

One last point: this week, the Catholic parents of a six-year-old boy named Jeremy, who is dear to us, and is afflicted with a terrible illness, decided to leave their apartment without knowing exactly where to go. Little Jeremy was barred from the square near his apartment building. The "big brothers" said to him: "This is Muslim territory. Go play somewhere else!"

That public square is also proudly halal.

Writer Renaud Camus has similar thoughts. First he notes the growth and encouragement of Ramadan, which he says is now almost obligatory among the younger immigrants, even though earlier immigrants practiced the tradition discreetly, if at all. He moves on to the role of the media:

(We) note too that the media venues insure that the greatest possible publicity is accorded to this religious practice. With their usual method of completely reversing reality, of using the most shameful lies (this still being the only efficient resource they have), they celebrate in a renewed enthusiasm what they are calling proof of integration. And it is. It refers to the dissolution of France into a vast Arabia, as prelude to the ultimate goal of the Umma, in perfect coincidence with the totality of humanity, since that is the explicit political aim of Islam.

(We) note the striking coincidence between this nonsensical promotional campaign and the construction at Mecca of a grandiose clock, built in France, in the hope that it will eventually replace Greenwich Time in the determination of world time. The internal rhythm of France escapes both of these two concurrent events - the first, by virtue of its radical foreignness compared to our own traditions, and the second, by virtue of its falsely neutral technical determinism, for it is tied to a country, a landscape, a people, a history, a culture, a rootedness that are completely different from our own.

Note: This is the first I've heard of a clock at Mecca, built by the French...

Using language that is much less literary and somewhat more... truculent, Brigitte Bardot once again blasted the Muslim presence in France, with emphasis on the near-obligatory halal menus everywhere. Here is some of what she said on Europe 1 radio:

"I don't give a damn about Ramadan, I couldn't care less (...) I find it scandalous. There is a French derogation that allows kosher and halal meats with horrifying traditional religious sacrifices. But now halal meat has invaded all of France."

She insisted that 80% of French slaughterhouses follow this custom "because it is quicker and they can sell to Muslims anywhere... Muslims do not have to choose a halal restaurant. They know that the meat served to them will be halal," she fired back.

She approved of the government's plans to strip certain criminals of their nationality. "Why should they continue to be French when they commit stupid acts, repulsive acts? When you are French, there is a certain dignity you must uphold (...) If I were to go to Switzerland or England or Germany, I would try to respect the laws and the way of life of those people."

Her approval of Sarkozy stops there. According to her, over the past three years Sarkozy made more and more promises he never kept. "What are those ministers up to? Other than selling us flu shots for the H1N1 flu that the world regards as a bunch of baloney." She went on to denounce bullfighting. On July 29 she wrote a letter to Jean-François Copé about a bill to ban the corrida, as they did in Catalunya. "They don't give a damn, despite my presence in France and my fame throughout the world," said the angry star. "I know that Sarkozy is an aficionado along with that fat broad Roselyne Bachelot (Minister of Health), and Fillon, and DSK (Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF), and Ségolène Royal, and Mamère (of the Green Party).

To those shocked by her outburst, she went on to explain: "I have the courage of my convictions. And I'm the only one in this rotten country who pulls no punches!"

Whew!

Frankly, the fame of movie stars has never prevented cruelty to animals or any other kind of cruelty. Temporarily, laws are passed to mitigate the suffering of beasts, but these laws are easily broken, when money is to be made. The horrible slaughter of baby seals in Canada every year attests to the failure of such laws. As for bullfighting, there are divergent views. It is an ancient custom, and some feel it is an integral part of certain European cultures. With halal, it's a different story. Islam is being welcomed with open arms by French authorities. They're not about to let Bardot's fame rain on their Eurabia parade.

In addition to the halal issue, Bardot recently sent out a plea to pet owners not to abandon their pets during the vacation period. It seems that France leads all other European countries in this cruel indifference to the family dogs and cats. We cannot blame the Muslims for this.

Master of Your House

A seventy-three-year-old man, napping in his home in Nissan-Lez-Ensérune, was aroused by the sudden appearance of two women who had broken in. René Galinier took his shotgun, shot at the two women and seriously wounded them. He is now in jail for what they are calling a possible "involuntary homicide". The two women are not identified, but they may be Roms, part of a gypsy camp not far from his home.

The story has aroused a great deal of website commentary. Angry protests against his incarceration, from various political parties, including the Front National, the Ligue du Midi (a regional patriotic party in the south of France), and even some members of Sarkozy's UMP party, have filled many web pages since it all started on August 5.


There are so many sources of information, that I decided to stick to just one. These are excerpts from a long statement by Richard Roudier (left), head of the Ligue du Midi, posted at Novopress:

On the first day of Rene Galinier's arrest, I contacted his family and his lawyers. Making contact was facilitated by the fact that my family on my father's side is from the village, situated on the road to Narbonne, a few miles from Béziers, my home town. My great grandfather had even participated in the building of the Ensérune museum. I was able to verify a certain number of facts:

Thursday, mid-afternoon, René Galinier, 73, was napping when he heard the noise of shutters being tampered with and saw a hand come in. He got up, did not cry out, paralyzed by fear...

His first reflex was to get to the phone, first a cell phone that didn't work, then the land line... In his haste he dialed 18. He said to the firemen: "Call the gendarmes right away, they are breaking into my home..." Meanwhile, the burglars broke the window of another room and entered the house. In the darkness, René Galinier got his rifle from the closet and went to look for some old cartridges in a drawer. He again called the gendarmes: "They're there, come quickly." Seeing that no one came, he panicked... and shot blind. He called the gendarmes again and said: "That's it. I shot my rifle", and then handed his gun over to the policeman who was the first to arrive. Then, the two wounded persons - they were women - were taken to the hospital, while he was taken into custody.

He faced a judge unwilling to allow that a person can take justice into his own hands, and who regarded the act, even in self-defense, as reprehensible and as justification for the arrest.

Now a few questions that the people are entitled to ask:

- Is it true that the two burglars are gypsies from Eastern Europe?

- Is it true that the two burglars had been arrested for a similar deed last week, and that a judge decided to release them...

- Do they have any connection with the camp of 300 nomads who have been illegally occupying an area near the village?

- Is it true that the gendarmes placed security personnel around René Galinier's house and also around the village, from fear of reprisals against the family and the property of this retired man, and against the population?

- Is it true that an anonymous witness declared that "Twelve burglaries had been committed over the past several months on the street where René Galinier lives, and that he himself had been robbed three times...?

Support is growing for René Galinier.

The inhabitants of Nissan-Lez-Ensérune have drawn up a petition of solidarity with this septuagenarian, who was flag bearer of the Veterans of North Africa. A regional paper carries the headline: "The villagers demand that the retired man be released" and quotes some residents: "We are all behind him. He is a kind man, helpful. He is particularly quiet and he had only friends here... For two days, people have been coming by, asking where they can sign the petition... They don't understand."

The paper relates the concern of the people of Nissan who are constantly "watching cars that sometimes pass by more than once. Here, everyone fears the reprisals against René's house, now empty and sealed."

The right to self-defense has been trampled on.

For the Ligue du Midi, this matter is an opportunity to repeat that self-defense is a fundamental right and a civic duty; it is perfectly normal to protect oneself, one's family and one's property. Through its actions, the Ligue intends to honor anew this notion - too often ignored by a Justice system that is decidedly no longer in the service of honest people. This traumatic event shows us that violence committed by thugs is not inevitable and that if they (the thugs) sometimes appear so big to us, it is because we are on our knees. The Ligue will always be in solidarity at the side of our kinsmen who choose to rise up and resist.

He goes on to cite other examples similar to this case and points to Sarkozy's sham promises to clean up crime.

The Ligue du Midi demands:

- The immediate release of René Galinier and a nullification of the charges against him.

- The proper use of police forces in the protection of people and property, rather than as traffic cops.

- The generalization of the sacred right of self-defense and in particular, the acknowledgment of the home as sanctuary.

I have just requested a money order of 500 euros from the CEPE (Committee for Aid to European Prisoners) for René Galinier so that he can adequately defend himself and live decently in prison.

I will announce further initiatives in the days to come...

He gives the following information:

For the petition:

http://lapetition.be/en-ligne/petition-7914.html

For Facebook:

"Soutien à papy René Galnier le septuagénaire incarcéré".

To give a donation via the CEPE (Committee for Aid to European Prisoners):

CEPE
BP 4-7187 30914 - Nïmes Cedex
(specify that it is for René Galinier)

FYI, here is an excerpt from the communiqué issued by Marine Le Pen on the arrest of René Galinier:

(...) But the immediate arrest of this elderly man described as quiet and friendly by the entire village, appears totally abusive when you think that, in Nicolas Sarkozy's France, multi-recidivists, rapists and professional criminals, are systematically set free a few minutes after their crime was committed. (...)

This incarceration is all the more unjust because self-defensive acts, regrettable though they may be, are but the sign of the extreme abandonment felt by decent people confronted with the exasperating inertia of public authorities who guarantee impunity to criminals.

Finally, those of you who read French (but who are not French) will find that René Galinier, because of his age, is often referred to as "papy", roughly equivalent to "Gramps" or "Grandpa". A lot is made of his age, but in my opinion, his age was in his favor. He had been born and raised in a different culture and he knew that self-defense was a basic right. He acted like a much younger man - despite his fear, he had enough equanimity to call the police, to get the gun and the ammo and to shoot only when there was no other way.

Below, the logo of the Ligue du Midi. It reads "Masters in our House".