Friday, November 21, 2008

"A Demographic Tsunami"


This article from Joachim Véliocas' website Islamisation focuses on Eric Zemmour, a rarity among rarities: a journalist who speaks openly about Islam, race, immigration, the harmful consequences of the feminist movement, and other taboo subjects. Zemmour, who writes for Le Figaro, also appears regularly on French television where he often engages his adversaries in heated dialogue. In a recent interview in the monthly magazine Le Choc du Mois, not available online, Zemmour spoke of immigration:

Eric Zemmour, questioned exclusively on the phenomenon of migrations and their consequences, was not afraid to affirm: "What is happening is a demographic tsunami." He also revealed the confidential remarks of a minister, unnamed, who confided in him that "We are witnessing the end of the Roman Empire."

Eric Zemmour related the substance of his confrontation with Brice Hortefeux, Minister of Immigration and National Identity. Hortefeux having renounced any thought of assimilating the immigrant population to French culture, now favors instead integration, which means preserving one's native culture. To which Zemmour retorted angrily: "You are not doing your job. You are ashamed of your ministry!"

In addition, Zemmour declared himself in agreement with a quote from General de Gaulle:

"It is good that there are yellow, black and brown Frenchmen. They show that France is open to all races and that her mission is universal. But on the condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would not be France. We are above all a European people of the white race, of Greco-Latin culture, and of the Christian religion (...) Do you believe that the French body can absorb ten million Muslims, who will perhaps become 20 million tomorrow and 40 million after that? If we allow integration, if all the Arabs and Berbers of Algeria were considered as Frenchmen, what would prevent them from coming and settling on the continent where the standard of living is so much higher? My village would no longer be called Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises, but Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées!".

Note: These famous words were uttered by de Gaulle in 1959.

Note too that Zemmour, born in Paris, is from a family of Jewish Berbers who left Algeria after the Algerian war. Berbers, many of whom refused to convert to Islam, remain opposed to the conquering ideology.

At this point I have no idea how many Jewish Berbers (if any) remain in Algeria. I know there is a Christian Berber population, often oppressed by the Algerian authorities.

The French make an important distinction between assimilation and integration, two words that we use rather loosely in America. For them "integration" means that a foreign population has settled on French soil, but remains separate from the dominant population. This foreign population often lives by its own laws, in its own ghettoes, and yet expects full financial support from the French State. In other words, as oxymoronic as it sounds, "integration" means "segregation." "Assimilation" on the other hand refers to the absorption into French society of a foreign population, either through the traditional "pull-yourself-up-by-the bootstraps" method and the adoption of the French way of life and government, or more significantly through intermarriage. To his credit, or discredit, as you like, Zemmour advocates assimilation, no doubt because he has been assimilated himself, and is loyal to a sovereign France, not one overrun by Brussels or ruled by the American economic model or Islamized.

What he must realize is that what has worked for him won't work for millions of immigrants who refuse to assimilate.

If Brice Hortefeux has given up on the idea of assimilation in favor of integration, is this a bad thing or a good thing for France? The problem is always the same: the largest foreign elements in France are not assimilable and so remain "integrated" but potentially very violent. But if they did assimilate, there would be no French population left - everyone would be "métissé". This was the original "dream" of Sarkozy and his ministers: a racially mixed France.

What few admit openly (although Zemmour clearly hints at it) is that France is being conquered, not merely immigrated to. And so there will not be assimilation of foreigners into the French population, but the reverse - the partial assimilation (through rape and intermarriage), and the partial integration through ghettoization, of the French population into a foreign population.

We are not at that point however. This process could be stopped, if someone would stop it.

Now back to Véliocas' article. He lashes out at the UMPS (the combination of Sarko's UMP with the Socialist Party, but Véliocas gives the acronym a new and better meaning!):

The cowardice of the UMPS ("Une Mosquée Par Semaine" - One Mosque Per Week) as it confronts the migratory invasion, is more and more difficult to deny... even for the journalists of the closely policed Figaro Magazine.

Since Eric Zemmour, by the rules of his profession, cannot propose measures or support a particular candidate, the millions of Frenchmen who listen to him must draw their own conclusions: they must vote, and more than that, they must commit themselves to the parties of the nationalist Right who dare to face the themes of Islamization and the invasion of our territory. So that tomorrow our children do not ask us: And what were you doing during the fall of French civilization?

The resistance movements can be counted on the fingers of one hand (...).

Véliocas declines to take sides on which right-wing party is best. I feel I have outlined to the best of my ability the situation that the nationalists face in my previous post and all the links provided there. In a word, the Right is in pieces. Either they really bury the hatchet(s) and join as one, or they don't, preferring to remain a plethora of small, equally ineffective, minority parties.

You can read more about Zemmour at English Wikipedia. Here are two excerpts:

Zemmour regularly takes positions that he describes as "anti-human rightsism", placing him in opposition to many politicians (including Bernard Kouchner), intellectuals (including Bernard-Henri Lévy), and organizations advocating humanitarian intervention, which Zemmour considers to be a form of neo-colonialism.

Zemmour is an advocate of traditional French assimilationism, and is staunchly opposed to "mass" immigration brought on by family reunification and to the current process of integrating immigrants which he considers too lenient towards them. He has frequently declared that he is in favour of assimilation, even if this makes him "neurotic". He is also in favour of the Thierry Mariani amendment, which would require people wishing to immigrate to France on the basis of family reunification to prove their relationship via DNA testing. He is frequently criticized for his pronouncements on immigration and his attacks on certain organizations (including SOS Racisme).

Labels: , , ,

12 Comments:

At November 22, 2008 12:48 PM, Anonymous Nicolas Krebs said...

"What is happening is a demographic tsunami."

What is he talking about?

"'integration' means 'segregation.'"

No.

"if they did assimilate, there would be no French population left - everyone would be 'métissé'"

So what?

"France is being conquered"

No. Of course you are free to believe that French are Untermenschen.

 
At November 22, 2008 3:35 PM, Blogger zazie said...

Nicolas Krebs
Could you be just a little more clear, especially in your last sentence ; Tiberge never said the French were underdogs, as far as I can remember!
Tiberge,
If you can spare the time, you might read "le destin des indigènes", at scriptoblog; Jef Carnac wonders whether he will send this text to....Zemmour!
Another point in your post about Zemmour made me smile, because I have just finished reading "ces chers imposteurs", a book in which both BHL and Kouchner are severely treated.
Since you have resumed posting, I suppose your relative is better ; I am glad for that.

 
At November 22, 2008 4:05 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ zazie

Thanks for the links. No she is certainly not better - I'm just taking a breather.

The article by Carnac looks interesting, and I will try to get to it ASAP. BUT - the link to François Desouche's website on the Zemmour Affair is fascinating - I did NOT realize it had exploded into an "affaire" - just like what happened to Finkielkraut. AF was cowed into apologizing by Elkkabach; has Zemmour apologized?

Unfortunately even Vanneste partially apologized - that's another "affaire" I have to work on.

I'll do as much as I can today and Sunday. Monday I will not be free.

 
At November 22, 2008 11:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

«the harmful consequences of the feminist movement»

bah!

Mr. Pork

 
At November 22, 2008 11:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

«We are witnessing the end of the Roman Empire.»

Treason.


Mr. Pork

 
At November 23, 2008 10:08 AM, Anonymous Nicolas Krebs said...

"Could you be just a little more clear, especially in your last sentence" (zazie)

Which words of me are unclear?

By the way, nice to meet you.

"Tiberge never said the French were underdogs, as far as I can remember!"

Indeed. She only quote Bat Ye'or and claim that "France is being conquered". By who? A few immigrants? Are French so weak that France can be conquered by a few immigrants? Does she believe that French are Untermenschen? Have you read this comment of me? Do you think that Europe, especially France, is ruled by a pro-arab conspiracy since 30 years?

 
At November 24, 2008 3:39 AM, Blogger zazie said...

INGISINicolas Krebs
"you are free to believe...."If i may say so , who is "YOU" ? Tiberge, or any reader of hers, or...anybody?
In her long history (since 987), France has often been partly or totally conquered, as far as her TERRITORY was concerned ; last time was when the conqueror loved calling the French "untermenschen" ; but NEVER has the French PEOPLE been entirely conquered up to now ; military conquest seeming impossible, our enemies have sent a Trojan horse, immigrants, who are not "a few", but millions who look as if they were decided to destroy un from within, by imposing THEIR culture, way of life and religion, with the help, I must say, of money-greedy politicians : Judas is a universal character, isn't he ?
I have just realised that I have not yet read the comment you mention...Sorry! I'll read it, and then, if I must change my comment, I will, I promise.

 
At November 24, 2008 11:57 AM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ zazie

If you read those comments he refers to about A City Occupied, and if you read my post, you will see that I left the door open to the possibility of figures being inaccurate. I was attempting to put together a reasonable estimate based on figures from Interior, from Wikipedia, and from what the Algerian in the article was saying. I never said anything definitive.

But when Mr. Krebs says there are only a few Arabs, he takes us for fools.

 
At November 24, 2008 2:08 PM, Anonymous Bligo said...

Very good post relating the situation on this controversy.
Except maybe for the french definition of "integration".
(By the way, Zemmour didn't apologize and even reaffirmed his position on France O in a new debate)
In this new debate he talked about assimilation/integration and said that what's meant by integration is social and economic integration, meaning immigrants live and work among the french population but keep their tradition and cultures otherwise. I think it's a good definition of what we mean when we talk of integration, whereas assimilation also means cultural integration.
Anyway, even integration as failed in a large proportion. The many "banlieues" are a proof of that, republican law barely applies there, police can only go there in case of emergency or when there're enough policemen and even then, they're thrown stones at.
Between 50-70% of inmates in France's jails are muslims though they're less than 10% (maybe more) in the general population.
The subject is taboo, but we have a serious problem with immigration and its consequences. I hope the country will wake up soon enough before it's too late as demograph predict a majority population by 2050 or at least before the end of the century if we go on like that.

 
At November 24, 2008 6:28 PM, Anonymous Nicolas Krebs said...

"I'll read it, and then, if I must change my comment, I will, I promise." (zazie)

So I will wait before answering the above comment of you.

"when Mr. Krebs says there are only a few Arabs, he takes us for fools." (tiberge)

I would more likely see you as misinformed.

"demograph predict a majority population by 2050" (Bligo)

Source? Which demograph?

 
At November 26, 2008 12:01 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ bligo,

Thanks for the comment. To everyone I would like to clarify one thing, though it may sound like self-justification. When I said "integration means segregaion", I added the word "oxymoronically". Maybe I should have said "paradoxically". What I meant was that "intégrer" in French really means to "enter into", but does not mean "be absorbed by". Yes, it is true of America too, it's just that we have a (bad) habit of confusing those two words.

Now, in France, you are integrated, but not necessarily LOYAL to the French State. This is one problem they are having in their ghettoes, where the people openly declare their hatred of France, where arms are stocked and riots begin. We have similar situations here. I'm not saying otherwise. But I often feel the immediate threat to France is greater, because of the powerful Muslim element and the extreme sycophancy of the French State to Africa, both North and Sub-Saharan.

I know that the words "integration" and "segregation" are NOT synonyms. I was speaking exceptionally of a particular situation in France where those two words are really kept very separate and refer to two distinct concepts.

I also wondered, and still wonder, if integration is not better than assimilation. Is it not better that they remain separate, rather than intermarry? The point is they have to be loyal to France.

If they are not loyal to France, then they are not only "integrated", i.e., present on French territory, but they are enemies of the State.

 
At November 26, 2008 1:08 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ to all

I must clarify the last sentence above. It should read:

If they are not loyal to France, then they are not only "integrated", i.e., present on French territory, and possibly working and living among the French, but they are enemies of the State.

The point is that being integrated, even if you are working and apparently a "Frenchman", does not mean that you really are a Frenchman. We have that situation here to put it mildly. Millions of non-white non-European Americans work. Some are greatly rewarded. Some receive accolades from the media. Some are mega-celebrities. But it doesn't mean that they feel "American" in the sense Ronald Reagan felt his love for America in the depths of his being.

It may be asking too much that people feel what Reagan felt.

Notwithstanding that observation, they are not expected to gloat over our defeats, or work to subvert the basic purpose of our Constitution, or finance subversive actions. So in this metaphorical sense "integration" can mean "voluntary segregation", by which (it should be clear) is meant being at war with the State when it tries to be true to its founding principles.

Last but not least, it should be pointed out that providing assistance, creating jobs, providing housing, for people who hate America (or France) only fuels their hatred. It does not turn them necessarily into citizens.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home