"Métissage" - Now It's An Obligation!
In a recent post I gave a few highlights of the speech delivered by Nicolas Sarkozy on December 17 to the students of the Ecole Polytechnique in Palaiseau.
But I had missed the best part.
The website of François Desouche provides a short video from that speech, which can be viewed in its entirety (45 minutes) at several websites including Daily Motion.
The excerpt in question centers on the France's obligation to become a mixed country - that troublesome word "métissé" is once again at the heart of his incredibly threatening speech. The verb "métisser" theoretically means to mix blood or to crossbreed, but at times it is used more loosely to mean mix cultures. Sarkozy uses the word, or a form of it, at least 7 times in the first few seconds of the video. Whether he is referring to the mixing of blood or merely destroying French culture by bringing in hostile aliens, it is impossible to avoid the fact that he is telling the French people, in terms that have never been so menacing, that they have to mix, or else.
What madness has the election of Obama wrought in the mind of this unFrench-man?
Here is my rendition of his words. It is far from perfect, because his grammar seems a bit off at times. Except for two places, I have retained the French word "métissage" (crossbreeding), and it's various verbal and adjectival forms, since "crossbreeding", "racial mixing" and other similar terms don't always convey the right meaning. "Crossbreeding" sounds too scientific, as when farmers crossbreed crops. "Miscegenation" is too technical and refers to marriage. "Mongrelization" and "bastardization" are too graphic. It looks as if "métissage" will join "laïcité" and "communautarisme" as French words that are so troublesome, it's better to just leave them.
However, if you have suggestions, feel free...
"(...) the objective is to meet the challenge of "métissage" - the challenge of "métissage" that the 21st century is confronting us with. The challenge of "métissage", France has always been familiar with it, and by meeting the challenge of "métissage" France remains faithful to her history. Moreover, it is consanguinity that has always provoked the end of civilizations and societies.
Note: In the above sentence we see that he IS talking about racially mixing the BLOOD of his compatriots with foreigners (and we know that the foreigners in question are not Swedes or Italians).
In the course of centuries, France has always known "métissage", France has always been "métissée".
Note: This is insanity. France has never been "métissée" in the way he is using the word. He is attempting to equate the mixing of the Franks, Latins and Celts with the mixing of white and black or of European and North African Muslim.
France has crossbred cultures, ideas and histories. France, who was able to crossbreed these cultures and these histories, constructed a universal language, because France herself is universal in the diversity of her origins.
Note: I'm not certain what he's trying to say except that out of the racially diverse mix, comes something universal. That may or may not be true, but it is not the point. Why does he want to destroy the civilization that grew and flourished over the past 2000 years, from the Roman Empire, to the Second World War? What is his complaint about French civilization, other than he doesn't like it very much?
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the last thing: If republican will power does not function, it will be necessary for the Republic to resort to even more forcible methods.
Note: It is the above sentence that has Desouche's readers reaching for their guns.
But we don't have a choice. Diversity at the base of the country must be reflected by diversity at the head of the country.
Does this mean he will resign in favor of Dieudonné?
It is not a choice. It is an obligation. It is an imperative. We cannot do otherwise at the risk of finding ourselves faced with considerable problems.
We must change, so we will change.
For a man who only looks to the future, who admittedly cares nothing for the past, Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be completely out of step with the needs of his people. They did not elect him to change the DNA of the country, but to improve their lot, to fight crime, to reduce immigration, and to restore a sense of national pride. Of all the betrayals France has endured, this is the unkindest cut of all.
François Desouche has over 200 comments from readers. They range from "Let's take our families and get out of Europe" to "Send this guy to the gibbet".
I like the second suggestion.