France Would Accept Guantanamo Prisoners

The news that France would be willing to accept some of the prisoners held in Guantanamo was announced on Wednesday by the Algerian daily El Chourouk, but rumors must have been abroad, since one of my readers informed me of the possibility in a comment several days ago.

This article, which only concerns three Algerians, is from Bivouac-Id:

(...) It seems that the French authorities are about to grant the status of political refugee to three Algerians being held in the Guantanamo prison.

These Algerians were presumably acquitted of the crimes imputed to them. But in that case, why is American security still investigating one of them? Are there still some doubts?

However, France has declared herself ready to welcome "with open arms" and to grant political asylum to these prisoners. Apparently Paris has no doubts as to the innocence of these men who nonetheless had been implicated in 2002 in attempts to attack the British and American embassies.

A reminder that these men had been arrested six years ago in Bosnia-Herzegovina where they had fled. Bosnia, however, refuses to take them since they do not have Bosnian nationality.

This is why American authorities solicited several European countries about accepting the newly freed prisoners, including the three Algerians. We should point out that Farouk Ksentini (president of the consultative commission for promoting human rights) declared that Algeria has agreed to take the three former prisoners, and has promised that no legal action will be initiated against them insofar as their innocence has been well established.

If that is the case, why France? Why should these men not go to Algeria since they are welcome there? Why would Bosnia not naturalize them since these men married Bosnian women and have children?

In truth, it seems that doubts on the complete innocence of these men, who have been freed and whitewashed through Obama's grace, are justified.

The photo below from July 3, 2006, is not directly connected to the post. It shows Khaled Ben Mustapha, who had been held at Gitmo, then transfered along with several others to Paris, where he was put on trial and incarcerated, before being acquitted a few days ago by an appeals court.

Read more about his case here.

A Turkish Future for Metz

There is a rather complex article, with numerous links, posted by Joachim Véliocas at his website Islamisation. It concerns the Turkish population of Metz and its hope for a giant mosque of its own, despite the many prayer rooms that already exist in the city. The article is based on a report in the daily Républicain Lorrain, dated February 20, that discusses plans for the mosque, focusing on comments made by the leaders of five Turkish associations of the city of Metz. Each of these associations hopes to manage or co-manage the projected mosque. One of the associations is the Islamist Milli Görüs party, whose founder, the former prime Minister of Turkey Necmettin Erbakan, was forced out of power in 1997 by the Turkish military and by the constitutional court that found him too radical.

An English-language Wikipedia page (in need of further "verification") is devoted to Erbakan.

According to Véliocas, Milli Görüs, is spreading with impunity throughout France, while the Interior Minister does nothing to stop it:

The term "milli görüs" means "national religious path" and the movement is classified as "fundamentalist Islam" by German intelligence services. The former minister from Lower Saxony, Sigmar Gabriel, places it in the same category as Hamas, and says that it counts among its members Bin Laden supporters. An internal memo from Milli Görüs, discovered by the German Interior Ministry in 1999, reads:

"The Community (i.e. the Turkish community) is a means working for an end - the end being to Islamize (German) society."

"Milli Görüs is a shield that protects our compatriots from European barbarity."

"Democracy is a Western error."

The Milli Görüs logo (above) looks ahead to the future: a white crescent on a green background - color of hope and of Islam - that covers the map of Europe. Their plan is to restore the Caliphate... in Metz!

The article in Républicain Lorrain notes:

The city officials will meet as a steering committee on March 4 for the initial phase of talks and to lay the groundwork for a vast construction, that of a giant mosque. Nothing can be done for several years, if the plan is to materialize at all. There is a real need - that of a growing community eager to be recognized at last.

Before the giant mosque there were the existing prayer rooms. They are almost all too small, but the associations do not want to abandon their own plans for extensions. Ahmed Duman, president of the Turkish cultural center, is adamant (about keeping his own plans to enlarge his prayer room):

"I cannot carry out my plans there. A big mosque with offices for everyone will be like a housing project with apartments. (...) We want our own place! For years we have been planning on enlarging our locale. We would like a prayer room for men and one for women. We have already spent 25,000 euros studying architects' plans. The previous city administration had found land for us (...) Why did they freeze our project? The city officials and the steering committee must show good faith regarding our projects and the projects of all the associations."

Note: The above comment by Ahmed Duman and several others cited by Véliocas all point to the fact that these Turkish community leaders want BOTH the new giant mosque AND an extension of their own prayer rooms, so they can work in peace in their own space, and enjoy the benefits of a larger mosque as well.

How do they perceive the future giant mosque?

For Güngör Ibili of Milli Görüs: "It must be well located."

For others:

"It must be a place where the young can really receive an education, a place both to work and relax. With social opportunities. And why not a restaurant? I see a big, big building."

"The older folks should not have to go far. It must be close to the city, a place that allows for a better understanding of Islam, a place for exchanges and encounters."

"It must be a beautiful place, with easy access, and not far from downtown. It must be visible from the highway. It must present a beautiful image of Metz for all of Europe."

"I would like a grandiose mosque, 1000 square meters minimum. A halal restaurant and a library. It must not be far away. City officials must choose the spot. We are encouraging imams from Château-Chinon and from Paris."

Véliocas points out that the last comment was made by Mohammed Kaddouri, whose own "cultural center" was entirely financed by the UMP mayor of Woippy, François Grosdidier. He also notes that the school for imams in Château-Chinon belongs to the UOIF (Union of Islamic Organizations of France), an Islamic association that is very close to the Muslim Brotherhood.

French readers can consult this article by Véliocas on the mosque in Woippy. And this long article from 1995, on the infiltration of Milli Görüs in Germany, originally published in German in Die Zeit.

Note: Woippy is an ancient town that dates from the Gallo-Roman period. Near Metz, in Lorraine, it had a population of 13,755 in 1999. The original spelling of the name was Guapeio. (Wikipedia)

Joachim Véliocas closes with a rhetorical question:

When will there be a parliamentary investigation into Milli Görüs and the UOIF in France? If imams can come into France from Turkey, Turkey itself refuses the visas of foreign priests on its territory. There has been an insidious religious cleansing in Turkey where Christians were 20% of the population (in 1910) and are only 1% today.

Wilders - Update

For some recent news about Geert Wilders, check out Atlas Shrugs.

H/T: Lawrence Auster at VFR. There are several posts on Wilders on VFR's homepage.

For some information about the sentencing of Lord Nazir Ahmed (the one who had Fitna banned in the House of Lords) to 12 weeks in prison for speeding and causing the death of a 28-year-old father of two, see The Lambeth Walk.

Guadeloupe

I know you have been reading about Guadeloupe in the English-language press. At least, I hope so. I have neglected the topic until now. Here is an article posted at François Desouche, based on AFP via Cyberpress:

Weary of a strike that, among other things, has kept the schools closed for a month; confronted, often for the first time in their lives by racist insults, white European Frenchmen who have settled on the island admit they are considering leaving.

"In the year ahead, we will witness a major wave of departures of whites from Guadeloupe to metropolitan France. People have had enough," insists Bertrand Vallet. "The slogan of the LKP (that has organized the strike for a month) - 'Guadeloupe is ours, not theirs' - is aimed at whites and it is a racist slogan," this shop owner from Sainte-Anne goes on, admitting that he was beaten up by union members because he refused to close his photography shop. Having filed a complaint, he has decided to return to France.

According to the Guadeloupeans those stigmatized by the word 'theirs' are the Béké - whites descended from the former slave owners. But the white Europeans feel that all whites are being targeted.

The article then describes a case of a French family that has moved back to France. And the words of a 50-year old publicity agent who said he had been threatened by a black man shouting, "For every wounded black, I will kill a white."

Young people riding around on bikes, machetes in their hands, had shouted to him in creole "Get the hell out of Guadeloupe." Ever since, something broke inside this man who is beginning to look at job offers.

Rodolphe, employed by a major international organization, arrived on the island eight years ago, but he is considering leaving soon. "Since the strike started, relations between whites and blacks have changed. More and more latent racism is being openly expressed in televised discussions. When Elie Domota, leader of the LKP, declares, 'France has chosen her natural path, that of killing Guadeloupeans,' it's a lie that creates racism," he feels. "If whites marched in Paris to say that France is ours, not yours, the minorities would cry racism," adds Rodolphe.

Manuela Jacob, an English teacher for nine years in Guadeloupe, believes that the "slowness of the reaction of the State increased the resentment against metropolitan France, and ricocheted back onto the European French of the island. "What happened did not calm down the attitudes towards whites, who are looked upon as colonialists," she said. Her companion, Abdennebi Omrame, a university professor adds that "it is making us think more about an early departure."

Laurent Petit, an insurance agent, married to an Antillean woman, father of three mulatto children, senses this "trivialization of racist talk" but only "within a small minority that also targets Indians and Chinese, as well as whites, all of whom are seen as taking advantage of the blacks." "I intend to stay here with my family, but I hope this page will soon be turned," he says. (...)

In case you have NOT been following this story, there has been a month-long uprising in Guadeloupe, organized by labor leader Elie Domota, who claims, in an interview published at Le Figaro, that his association, the LKP, has received nothing from the French State, that none of their 131 demands have been met, and accuses the State of dragging its feet, something Domota says would have been unimaginable in metropolitan France. He claims that the blacks on the island live as they did during slavery. and asserts that the main culture is not even theirs, it belongs to the whites, accusing France of not doing anything to develop the Guadeloupean economy and of discriminating against those who are not French.

Below is one image of the violence. There's more here.



In a twist of fate some may regard with sardonic humor, it turns out that Guadeloupe is actually part of Europe. After all, it IS France. The following graph shows first the rate of unemployment ("chômage") in Europe, with the least affected regions on the left and the most affected ones on the right. You can see that Reunion Island and Guadeloupe head the list in terms of unemployment, while Zélande (Netherlands) and Prague are the least affected. The second chart shows the rate of unemployment among young people 15 to 24. Again, Guadeloupe and Reunion head the list, with 55.7 and 50% respectively:



France's overseas regions and departments cost the State astronomical sums of money. The graph below shows the amounts in euros allocated in 2009 to Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guiana, Reunion, and overseas collectivities including New Caledonia. The total of 12.7 billion euro is still incomplete. The French State has promised the rebels in Guadeloupe 100 million euros to satisfy their demands:



And while Ségolène Royal visited Guadeloupe to show her sympathy for the rioters (photo below), attracting virulent criticism from many quarters for her inappropriate actions, British tourists confronting anti-white racism are fleeing the island. Here's an article from the Daily Mail with numerous photos, and a glaring error about Rachida Dati, calling her "black", possibly confusing her with Rama Yade.

Inherently Racist

The French are constantly accused of being racists, and force-fed the propaganda of repentance. But "sociologist" Michel Wieviorka (left) goes further than most in his hypocrisy and his disdain for France, the country that has given him the opportunity to become a well-known figure in his field. A Google search in both French and English shows that his writings and books have a wide audience. This is unfortunate, because there never was such a blatant example of biting the hand that feeds you.

A good example of his politically correct platitudes is this English-language analysis of the 2005 riots that revealed to the world the violence of the Parisian "suburbs", and the hellish mess France was in as a result of massive immigration.

An essay co-authored by Wieviorka and George Pau-Langevin (left), a socialist deputy from Guadeloupe, appears at Libération in which they reiterate the stale, fallacious arguments that purport to demonstrate that the French are inherently racist. Here are a few excerpts:

France, enthusiastic after the election of the first Afro-American president of the United States, wonders: why not us? Answer: because the United States acted. France did not. They had a lot to catch up on though, with apartheid elements that had lasted until the 60's. Then came the civil rights movement, political activism with affirmative action in the universities and in public service, the progressive emergence of diversity in the political, media and financial elite. Barack Obama does not come out of nowhere. He is the result of a fundamental movement.

Note: That is true, but the "fundamental movement" was destructive of American society. He emerged, in fact, from the long-term effects of social chaos, diminished standards, totalitarian ideologies, and the dishonest device of affirmative action, not from progress.

No such thing happened in France. In the name of some abstract universalism, the Republic refused for a long time to acknowledge its new diversity. In the 80's and 90's, to speak of multi-culturalism, even in a low-key manner, was to risk being treated as an ethnic separatist ("communautariste") or as a destroyer of the Republic.

The article then discusses the changes taking place in France, changes similar to those that have nearly destroyed the United States, and the difficulties encountered by immigrants who want to improve their lot, but find they are stymied in their attempt to climb the social ladder.

But the problems of diversity are not just social. They concern above all certain groups, however you want to designate them - immigrants, visible minorities, Arabs, blacks, etc... The student with an Arab name who cannot find a job, unlike his friends with a very "French" last name from the same social milieu, the black graduate who is never called for a job interview, these people are not penalized for social reasons alone.

Note: The authors, both committed socialists, simply look at the consequences of bad policies that they themselves have advocated, and blame the victims, i.e., the French. In the next paragraph they reach a new summit (or is it a nadir?) of incoherence:

Racial discrimination exists. It is inscribed in the French mindset: differences in skin color, a poorly digested colonial past, and a culturalist vision of France are some of its potent factors. It has been reenforced by the political agitation of the Le Pen years - true, there were no real consequences in French law, but there was a major psychological impact that worked against integration: the debate on nationality, the desire to reject the jus soli in favor of the "Gallic" jus sanguinis, the hardening towards Islam with the rejection of the head scarf and the mosques, the affirmation of selective immigration, thus conveying to French immigrants the stigma of being "unwanted".

Note: I cannot find one iota of valid reasoning in the above. These authors clearly hate France. And if the French have "hardened" towards Islam, how much harder is the attitude of the Muslims towards the French!

This is why specific policies are necessary to stem discrimination. To punish it, of course, but above all to change the face of collective representations (such as the National Assembly) and to admit, as they have done in the United States, that the Republic is henceforth diverse.

Today we must move further along in our knowledge of discrimination, we must better grasp the strengths and specific difficulties of certain populations. The legitimate debate on "ethnic statistics" should not allow us to forget this obvious truth: we need precise data in order to act. To know our society in its cultural and religious dimensions, in its national origins, ought to aid in the stemming of racism. And allow us to gain from our diversity.

Note: Imagine someone injected with carcinogenic substances, who falls ill, and who is then blamed for having cancer. That is how these authors fatuously interpret the current situation in France. It would be nice to think that the French government ignores such garbage. But we know that France, under Sarkozy and his predecessors, following slavishly the model of the United States and under orders from Brussels, is being re-structured to accommodate the most destructive elements contained therein. For no reason except that anti-racism is the latest "ism" we must all worship - or else.

One final note: I do agree that ethnic statistics should be available to the general public, in order that the French people themselves have a clearer idea of what they are up against. I think in some rural regions they may not be as aware as they should be of the dangers.

Caught Up In the Spiral

On Wednesday of last week, Nicolas Sarkozy met with both labor leaders and representatives of management in what was called a "social summit". His purpose was to announce to these "social partners" the latest in a series of economic reforms and measures aimed at alleviating the distress of the French working classes in the current crisis. Measures include increased unemployment compensation, lower taxes (in some cases no taxes), more on-the-job training for young people, one-time bonuses for those who were employed only four months before being laid off, and other projects of this nature, all designed to appease the labor unions who are planning on a general strike throughout the country on March 19.

You can read an English-language summary of his plans at France 24.

Of more interest to me was this analysis by Catholic writer Bernard Antony of the whirlwind activity of the president, who appears to be on a treadmill, trying to run, able only to plod ever more slowly, and getting nowhere fast:

Nicolas Sarkozy, caught up in a sort of activism that is not only feverish but more and more pathological, operates each day in three or four different fields of action, ignoring the life-saving relaxation that his gentle wife Carla could provide him more often.

Note: That certainly sounds like a compliment to Carla. If there is a tone of irony or facetiousness I am not aware of it. He probably means that she is a lot more composed than he.

But caught up in all the gears of political and social life, without having taken the trouble to reflect on the true nature of the dislocation of France, he lets himself be carried away in the convulsions of a frenzy, distributing euros by the billions, and thus digging himself deeper into public debt, and thereby opening the way to more crises that will be exploited by comrades Besancenot, Bové, and pro-Castro islanders.

Note: Olivier Besancenot and José Bové are extreme left-wingers. The "islanders" is a reference to the current uprising in Guadeloupe, where some are demanding independence from France, or at least more repentance.

Even though his spontaneous ideology, from all evidence, results from a libertarian and revolutionary concept of life that favors social and national uprooting, his trendy, aggressively jet-setting and pro-capitalist manner causes him to be hated by the different factions of neo-Leninism-Trotskyism.

Thus he has become the object of continuous ridicule and verbal brutality by the media, even by the national media sources that too many journalists consider as conquered territories and anarchist-leftist propaganda bases.

From this, we can weigh the fragility of Sarkozy's network of accomplices. That they go after Sarkozy himself would not be so serious, but through him, it is the State that is being ridiculed and it is the people who are being disdained with all the artifices of media intoxication.

In the end, Nicolas Sarkozy can only pass anti-family reforms. On everything else, he backs off. And only edges closer to the precipice. If he alone is hurled down in the process, it will not be so serious, but unfortunately it is France that is becoming undone, more and more with every passing day. (1)

It is time to create the necessary tool with which we can mobilize our national energies. We'll talk about this on Monday.

(1) This paragraph presented some serious translation problems because of the expression "reculer pour mieux sauter." Here is the French text:

"En définitive, ce ne sont que des réformes antifamiliales que Nicolas Sarkozy peut faire passer. Sur tout le reste, il recule. Pour mieux sauter. Qu’il saute, lui, ce ne sera pas grave mais c’est hélas la France qui chaque jour est défaite encore un peu plus."

The expression seems to mean "to back off in order to get into a better position." But in fact it has the more subtle meaning of "back off in order to delay an inevitable disaster," that is, to put off the "evil day." Sarkozy backs off, because he cannot face the consequences of going through with his original proposal or promise. He needs a better vantage point, and so he waits, but the inevitable will happen anyway, as it must, since the real issues and their solutions are not part of his frame of reference - are, in fact, things to be avoided at all costs.

If anyone wants to offer an alternative translation, please do.

Cologne Revisited

The poster above announces a demonstration scheduled for May 9, 2009 in Cologne, Germany, site of last year's ill-fated rally when thousands of leftists attacked the demonstrators. The demonstration was an initiative of the Pro-Köln Movement in protest against the construction of a giant mosque for the German city. This article written by Robert Spieler of the nationalist Nouvelle Droite Populaire party, is posted at LVCI (Cities Against Islamization), the site referenced in my previous article:

Everyone remembers. On September 20, 2008, the German police, one of the most repressive in Europe, on orders from its chief, refused to ensure the safety of the anti-Islamization meeting in Cologne.

I was there along with representatives of all the European movements. Tens of thousands of leftists attacked our rally.

Pro-Köln, which is spear-heading the European resistance to the invasion, on the initiative of its leader Markus Beisicht, has decided to hold another large demonstration in Cologne on Saturday May 9. It is scheduled to take place at Place Roncalli, near the Cologne cathedral where all the Turkish, Kurdish and extreme leftist demonstrations took place.

The socialist führer of police, Steffenhagen, has just decided, with the support of the little worm Schramma, ex-mayor of Cologne, that this demonstration will in not, in any event, take place there. He is now trying to impose another site, away from the center of the city. He had already declared during the first demonstration that "photos of the rally and the participants could not, in any case, be taken in front of the cathedral and spread around the world."

Note: Fritz Schramma is still listed as mayor of Cologne in Wikipedia, but maybe an update is needed. He belongs to the center-right(!) Christian Democrat Union.

The lawyer and leader of Pro-Köln has just filed an appeal demanding freedom from this oppression.

On the invitation of Markus Beisicht, I will speak, come what may, on May 9 in Cologne, along with my friends Carl Lang, Filip Dewinter, Harald Wilimsky (of the Austrian party FPöe), Mario Borghezio of the Italian Lega Nord and all the European forces that have decided, as they did in Vienna in 1682, to defeat the invasion and to fight its collaborators.

A reminder that Robert Spieler, once a member of Le Pen's Front National now heads his own group, the Nouvelle Droite Populaire, and that Carl Lang former vice-president of the FN has also separated himself from the party (though he may still be technically a member) in order to run on a nationalist/sovereigntist ticket in the June European elections.

Below the beautiful Cologne cathedral.

Cities Against Islamization

Les Villes Contre l'Islamisation (its English version is Cities Against Islamization) has posted an open letter to the mayors of France:

Mr. (Madame) Mayor,

The public authorities now pay 30% of the financing of Muslim places of worship, in violation or evasion of the law.

Mosques are coming out of the earth everywhere. Some 150 are planned. Moreover, the mayors also use cultural activities of the mosque, sometimes a simple afternoon tea, as an excuse for giving a subsidy.

The CFCM (French Council on the Muslim Religion) hopes to go from 2000 mosques to 4000.

And yet...

Did you know that Islam is not only a religion, but that it advocates a social order based on sharia (the Islamic law of the Koran and hadiths) and on the preeminence of the umma (the community of Muslims), an order that is totally incompatible with the values and norms of our European society?

Did you know that mosques function as catalysts for the Islamization of urban areas; that they demand, with all the authority vested in them by the Muslim community, the strict practice of Islam, which hinders the integration of these Muslim minorities?

Did you know that certain Muslims place divine Islamic law above civil laws? Moreover, there exists, among Muslim populations, a tendency to radicalization that is manifest in the growing hostility that accompanies the encounter with our Western civilization and its founding values?

Did you know that 85% of the French people are against the public financing of mosques?

Did you know that Europe is a land of cathedrals and bell-towers and not of mosques and minarets?

With respect to you and the laws of the Republic...

Note: A polite but forceful statement of of the truth. Many bloggers have noted that mayors collaborate in the building of mosques to get Muslim votes. So far, the 85% of the voting public opposed to mosques has not been able to stop the trend, even if they have managed to stop some constructions . I can only assume that this is because, when the politicians vote for public financing in their city councils, the UMP party ignores the 85% and collaborates with the Muslims, Socialists, Greens, and other factions that favor mosques.

For that matter, it could be assumed that even the Socialist politicians in the city councils ignore the 85%, since 85% of the voting public MUST include a lot of Socialists.

The bottom line here is that when it comes to the building of mosques, the politicians ignore completely the people who put them into office.

Four thousand mosques in France would be catastrophic. France is smaller than Texas. Can you imagine Texas with 4000 mosques?

For interested parties, this letter can be printed. The link above provides a pdf link.

H/T: Robert Spieler at NDP

Under the Influence

Earlier this month the daily newspaper Aujourd'hui En France devoted a full page to the first anniversary of Carla Bruni and Nicolas Sarkozy, with an emphasis on the political influence the former model exerts over the president. Novopress reports:

The paper devoted much space to the "shadows of the Battisti affair," referring to the Marxist ex-terrorist whom Brazil refuses to extradite to Rome. A decision made after the Sarkozys vacationed in Brazil last Christmas...

Quoting Alberto Toscano, the Paris correspondent of the Italian weekly Panorama, Aujourd'hui En France wrote that the French first lady "seems to have promoted a meeting on October 31 between her friend Fred Vargas, a pro-Battisti writer, and Nicolas Sarkozy, followed by another meeting between Fred Vargas and the Brazilian general secretary of justice.

Note: I'm not familiar with Fred Vargas but, from the spelling of the nouns in the sentence, it is a woman.

Elysée did not deny the Sarkozy-Vargas encounter arranged for the benefit of the ex-terrorist of the extreme Left, convicted to life in prison for four killings. Aujourd'hui En France also recalls that Nicolas Sarkozy had uttered this sentence pregnant with meaning about the arrest of Cesare Battisti: "I have never spoken with the Brazilian president Lula, nor has Carla. But I can have contacts with other persons..."

Not the first act of benevolence towards the extreme Left. On October 13, 2008, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy had announced that she herself had told Marina Petrella, the former terrorist of the Italian Red Brigade, that France would not extradite her.

Is this flexibility towards terrorism?

No need to answer that one.

Aymeric Chauprade - Update

The controversy over Aymeric Chauprade goes on and on. I will try to post more about it in the coming days, in particular the connection to France's rejoining NATO, which may be at the heart of the matter more so than 9/11. Right now, there is too much information, and I must do some condensing.

Impotent Police

A short article in Novopress stresses the increase in violence among multi-ethnic gangs in Paris. This story is actually an addition to my recent post on the same topic:

A report on the crimes of multi-ethnic gangs in the capital, commissioned by district attorney Jean-Claude Marin, sends out a warning signal: "The level of tension between the police and the youth of the projects is reaching the breaking point." Figures released by the prefecture indicate that "in 2008, gang violence grew in the last quarter with more than 20 incidents, some of which ended with the death of one of the protagonists." A policeman in the 19th arrondissement pointed out that potentially this meant an increase in weapons. The report notes that in the neighborhoods where these hordes operate "any outside interference is viewed as an attack." Proof that these thugs, primarily non-Europeans, feel they are masters in their own land. (my emphasis)

While these additional comments do not add very much to what we already knew, they bring home the fact that the police are very soon going to be not only ineffective, but totally disabled, and will not dare go into these areas. Which means, basically, that the territory is under foreign occupation. This is already true in certain Parisian suburban ghettoes.

The video in the previous post about the riots in London last month attests also to the impotence of the police in major urban uprisings where unassimilable elements are involved. The unassimilable elements automatically have the upper hand - a complete reversal of common sense, of the responsibility to protect citizens and of the fundamental duty of self-preservation.

The photo below shows that ghetto culture is ghetto culture everywhere. The same stance, the same look, the same tattoos, the same hatred of civilized behavior, the same horrible murals, etc...

British Police Humiliated

Lien:

This video appears at the Bivouac-Id website. It has been subtitled in French, but the words you will hear are in English (mostly foul language). It goes back to early January during the pro-Palestinian riots, and though it is no longer current, it expresses graphically the impotence of the police forces against the rioters. Impotence because, obviously, the police must be under orders not to hurt anyone, not to shoot (do they carry weapons?), with the result that the thugs can make law enforcers look like fools. It is the same story in most Western countries today.

Violent Gang Arrested

Here's a tale of terrifying crimes in Paris. From Le Parisien, via François Desouche. The names of the gang members have not been changed:

They are only in their twenties, but their barbarity caused the very volatile ("sensible") neighborhood of Curial, in the 19th arrondissement of Paris, to tremble for five months. Unheard-of violence from a gang composed of Seydou, Abdel, Nihad and Salah, four "children" of this project in the eastern district of Paris, who assaulted, robbed, beat, and tortured at least eight men, ages 19 to 65, since September 2008. Until they were finally arrested last Tuesday by police investigators who outwitted them thanks to DNA evidence found on one of the victims.

Brought before the examining magistrate, Isabelle Couzy, on Friday February 13, they were indicted for "theft and extortion with weapons and organized gang violence, and for kidnapping followed by release before the 7th day." Enough criminal indictments to go to jail for twenty years. Later that evening, a judge issued a warrant authorizing that they be kept in detention, in accordance with the prosecutor's request.

The gang members, who wore face masks when they attacked, skimmed the 19th arrondissement searching for prey since September 24, date of the first attack: always men, always bachelors who were returning home late. Thanks to the darkness, the victims were followed, sometimes to their door, held up at gunpoint, then beaten with incredible violence, sometimes bound or handcuffed. Slaps, punches, cigarette burns, death threats, humiliation... The gang stopped at nothing to get a few euros, a bank card PIN, an iPod, a cell phone or a video game. The booty was always meager, but the consequences for the victims are telling: two of them are on medical leave from their job for 30 days, another for 20 days. Maël, a 25-year-old, was leaving the MK2 movie theater, the night of September 29, after seeing "Batman" with some friends and was on his way home. Suddenly, three members of the gang, their faces masked, emerged, pointing a gun. In a few minutes Maël was dragged into a basement of the project across the street where he spent two hours:

"What he went through that night was like torture, barbarity. Words which, I hope, will be remembered by the examining magistrate, because Maël is ready to go to any length to obtain justice," maintains his lawyer Philippe Valent. For interminable minutes the young man was beaten on the head with a gun handle, burned with cigarettes, stripped naked and thrown to the ground, totally helpless, Valent points out. "With an incredible hatred, and even when they had gotten his bank card PIN, his attackers told him they could kill him, mimicking an execution by shoving the barrel of their gun down his throat." The booty? A mere 300 euro.

Like Maël, seven others encountered the barbarous gang from Curial. Had Seydou, Abdel, Nihad and Salah picked out their victims? Planned the attacks? "That's the whole mystery about this affair," Valent laments. "But it is likely that their victims were not totally picked at random."

Those who understand French can view a video of one of the victims relating his experience. Click the link above to François Desouche.

The Curial project has become one of the most notorious neighborhoods in an already notorious arrondissement. I have written before about the 19th arrondissement.

New Family Values

According to Le Figaro, on Friday Nicolas Sarkozy announced that he would introduce a bill in Parliament to create the "status of step-parent" aimed at recognizing the rights and responsibilities of adults raising children who are not theirs. This obviously refers to gay adoption, though the article does not say so explicitly:

"I want to recognize these particular bonds through the creation of a status of step-parent, and more broadly, of third-parties who are not the parents of the children with whom they live," affirmed Sarkozy to the family associations meeting with him at Elysée.

"This status will provide for the recognition of the rights and responsibilities of adults raising children who are not their own. I'm asking the government to draft a bill on this issue, by the end of March, after the necessary consultations," he added.

Following a link to the website Protection-Enfance (protection of children), a communiqué from Béatrice Bourges, spokeswoman for a 60-group Collective, dedicated to the protection of children, takes issue with Sarkozy's proposal on a special status of "step-parent" and questions its utility:

"Even if a child is not fortunate enough to grow up in a family composed of his biological father and mother, he needs to know where he comes from and what his origins are. To grant status to a third party clouds the issue and does not allow him to grow up in a structured way. How far will we go in the definition of a 'third party' and how many 'third parties' can succeed one another in the upbringing of the child?"

Since the situation of extended families is already very complex, why complicate it even more? The law of March 4, 2002 already permits a third-party to have parental authority if it is necessary. The Collective is surprised that the president is considering taking such measures on behalf of these third parties.

"I fear that he is merely yielding to the pressures of a few minority groups who advocate the adoption of children by couples of the same sex," affirms Béatrice Bourges. "Since the family should be the most stable place possible for the upbringing of children, this bill can only weaken this essential cell of society," she believes.

Le Salon Beige adds:

In a communiqué, Gay Lib, the gay lobby close to the UMP party, expresses satisfaction at this latest measure to destroy the family:

"With this measure, the interest of the child will no longer be taken into account only within the limitations of the laws protecting marriage, but will concern also the totality of children raised in France today, be they in extended, single-parent or homosexual households."

Writing at his blog, Christian Vanneste, the UMP deputy from Tourcoing in northern France declares that he will vote against such a bill:

I repeat: there is a fight to be waged for the restoration of the Family, essential to the present and future of our society, hence to the future happiness of our children. You can count on me. Once again, it seems that family policies are not among the priorities of the Chief Executive. Yet, there is so much to be done. At any rate, for me, I will say no to the status of step-parent!

Another topic related to the well-being of the child was addressed by Sarkozy at the meeting of family associations mentioned above: that of shortening maternity leave. Like the bill on step-parents, this proposal has angered the family associations and the Catholic websites:

"Maternity leave is sometimes the cause of an immense failure" deplored Nicolas Sarkozy, who feels the system does not work for women, for their families or for society. Currently, it is possible to stop working for six months after the first child is born. After the second child the mother can take extended leave until the child is three, all the while receiving a partial salary. After the third child is born it is possible to stop work for one year, but the salary is higher.

Note: If I understand correctly, a woman who gives birth three times over a six-year period, could stay at home 4 1/2 years out of the six, and still be paid! If that's true, Sarkozy may have a point. What employer would want to take such a chance? Would he not find it safer to just hire men?

According to Sarkozy, for women, "a long-term maternity leave is a rupture in the woman's career, which can result in fewer chances for advancement." For the family, "it is one less salary, and less purchasing power, and for society nearly 800,000 women are kept out of the job market each year. Maternity is a great human adventure, not a punishment. (...) But time off from work should not be a default solution for families."

Some of Sarkozy's solutions include flex-time or part-time positions rather than a total work stoppage. To help working mothers he announced the creation, by the year 2012, of 200,000 additional places for young children in daycare centers.

No one dares to suggest that the woman should simply give up her career long enough to raise her children. Yet that would be the most logical, least expensive and most satisfactory solution for the child. If the woman becomes a widow, then the State could intervene with assistance. She can certainly return to the workforce once all the children are in school, possibly on a part-time basis, but it is preferable for her to be available in the event her child is sent home from school or the school needs her for some reason.

In other words, it is very difficult to have a work schedule (even part-time) AND raise children (even school-age children) properly. Some manage better than others as individual circumstances vary widely. Many have suggested that Rachida Dati's rapid return to work 5 days after the birth of her daughter gave ammunition to Sarkozy for these proposals. But Dati no doubt has a lot of help and women should not try to pattern their lives after famous celebrities.

Sarkozy is criticized by the Catholics for wanting to keep the mother away from her children, thus preventing her from educating them according to her standards. This may be true, but to pay the mother for several years while she's at home seems (to me) a terrible drain on employers. At Le Salon Beige, readers lash out at Sarkozy's proposals, seeing them as a plot to destroy the family and to place the demands of the economy ahead of the needs of children, but they don't offer a solution to the employer's hardship in paying the mother while she's at home.

At one time, in America, women who became pregnant had to resign from their job. Today, in the United States, the individual States all come under the FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act) of 1993. Its basic provisions are listed at Wikipedia. But some States have additional benefits to those provided by FMLA. Those interested can find information on the individual States at the Parents website.

The photo from Le Point shows a very family-oriented Sarkozy with Minister of Health Roselyne Bachelot on the right.

Aymeric Chauprade

This story has been carried by many websites and blogs . It first broke about 10 days ago, when it was announced that a teacher at the Collège Interarmées de Défense (CID), roughly translated as Joint Staff College, and formerly known as the School for Warfare within the more general framework of the Military Academy, had been fired by the Minister of Defense because of his views on 9/11. Here, I'm condensing material from a blog called Secret Defense, devoted exclusively to things military:

Aymeric Chauprade, instructor of geopolitics at the CID, was brutally dismissed this morning (February 5) by Defense Minister Hervé Morin following the publication of an article in Le Point. Morin accuses him of being the author of a "text from which emanate unacceptable notions" concerning the 9/11 attacks which are presented as the fruit of an Israeli-American conspiracy.

The text in question refers to a new book by Chauprade entitled Chronique du choc des civilisations (chronicle of the clash of civilizations).

Jean Guisnel of Le Point quotes Defense Minister Hervé Morin:

"I discovered a text from which emanate unacceptable notions. Over eleven pages he speaks of an Israeli-American conspiracy aiming to conquer the world. When I learned of this on Tuesday evening, I gave the order to General Desportes, Chauprade's superior, not to keep this Monsieur Chauprade on the teaching staff. He has no business being at the Military Academy." This meant dismissal.

Questioned by Secret Defense, Aymeric Chauprade, 40, said he was astounded: "They're cutting off my head. I had no contact with the Minister's cabinet. No one attempted to hear my side before making this decision following the publication of one article." A "very angry" Chauprade intends to defend himself. He has a lawyer and has promised "a fight."

He explains the basis for the reproaches: "It's true that I present the theory (of an Israeli-American conspiracy) in a favorable light, but I don't say it's my position. I wanted to show the opposition between two ways of seeing the world, aware that half of humanity thinks the 9/11 attacks were the result of a conspiracy" and not the work of al-Qaïda Islamists."

Having read the chapter in question, the first one in the book, the author of this blog (meaning Secret Defense) can attest that the conspiracy theories are presented with a great deal of acceptance and especially that the author knowingly omits the other version of the facts, that he calls the "official version," as well as the criticisms of the conspiracy theories.

This afternoon, students at the CID rose up against what they perceive as a "witch hunt" on behalf of "official thought".

The article then describes Chauprade's duties at CID and his past: an instructor since 1999, he offers a weekly course in geopolitics, as well as a course on methods of geopolitical analysis for officers 35-years of age. An officer in the naval reserves, he has a small office at the military academy. Besides his work at CID, he is the author and publisher of several works.

"He has never proselytized in his courses, has never expressed his vision of the world, but by acknowledging his work at CID in his books, he implicates the military institution with theories that we do not adhere to," explains General Vincent Desportes, director of CID. General Deportes, one of the thinking heads of the armed forces and author of numerous books, insists he is "intellectually opposed to the theories held by Chauprade, theories that are not acceptable."

In his books Chauprade defends his theory of the clash of civilizations, notably through an opposition between Europe (including Russia) on the one hand and Islam, on the other. But, contrary to American neo-conservatives, he is clearly hostile to the United States and to Israel. Chauprade has never hidden that his political convictions are those of the hard-core Right, close to Philippe de Villiers.

Note: That's an unusual statement, (and the reference to neo-conservatives only mixes things up more). Villiers is not commonly referred to as a hard-liner, at least not by the nationalist blogs. But Secret Defense may see him differently.

A page of French Wikipedia explains that Chauprade, a committed sovereigntist and a Catholic, supported Villiers in the European elections of 2004 (Le Point, linked below, points out that he was Villiers' campaign manager), but did not support his positions on the Arab world and Muslims during the 2007 presidential elections. So, in conclusion, it seems safe to say that Chauprade and Villiers agree on the issues of sovereignty and Turkey, but not on Islam.

The same Wikipedia page does not indicate where Chauprade was born, or what his ethnicity is, other than to say that he is a Frenchman, or if he is married. However it points out that he has taught in Morocco, and lists among his books a work entitled Eternal Beirut. Despite his Middle Eastern appearance, there is nothing to indciate he is anything other than a Frenchman.

Finally, it seems that CID had intended to quietly bring Aymeric Chauprade's tenure there to an end, and had absolutely nothing to do with the decision of the Defense Minister.

A sequel to the above dated February 7, also from Secret Defense, expands on the remarks by Aymeric Chauprade and his legal defense:

"I am now free to express myself. The little clan, within the Ministry of Defense, that defends foreign interests, essentially American, is going to have some worries," he threatens. (...)

Questioned by Secret Defense on the main issue, i.e., the 9/11 attacks, Aymeric Chauprade maintains his declarations which match those of the conspiracy theorists and which absolve radical Islamism, attributing responsibility to the Americans and Israelis: "You have a right not to know (who committed the attacks). I am not convinced by the official version. I have in fact presented in a credible way the alternative theories. But I give the official version - that everybody knows anyway - in a chronology. I have serious doubts, but that does not mean that I believe those responsible are members of the American or Israeli services. I draw no conclusions. I ask questions."

The opinion of Secret Defense? That the theory of Aymeric Chauprade feeds all the conspiracy fantasies, that it is absolutely unacceptable, and I told him so. His political opinions (close to the hard-line Right) were never a secret. But the method used by the Defense Ministry were nonetheless very brutal, and risk being seen unfavorably by the many officers who have taken his courses. I'm already hearing stories. This is exactly the opposite of the desired effect...

This is only a small part of the numerous articles on this story. I will try to post future updates on the entangled tale. One in particular posits the theory that the real issue is not 9/11, but the re-entry of France into NATO, opposed by Chauprade, but endorsed by Nicolas Sarkozy. French readers who visit Le Salon Beige regularly will find lively discussions among the readers, most of whom are on Chauprade's side, regarding this as a freedom-of-expression issue, or as a reflection of France's subservience to the American imperialists. In their minds Chauprade represents the "politically incorrect" point of view and is being persecuted for it. Many say they can't wait to read his book.

The same is true at Le Point where readers do not believe the twin towers collapsed from the impact of the airplanes, but from some as-yet-unexplained factor.

My opinion: The French and other Europeans can believe anything they want. In America we know we were attacked and by whom. Whether or not Chauprade should have been dismissed in this manner is another issue. He was quite young - 30 years old, when he was appointed to the Military Academy, possibly too young? He has some strange ideas - he believes we are still haunted by the "ambiguities" of Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination, and that America has been deeply marked by a culture of conspiracy. But doesn't that culture apply more accurately to him than to us?

A Giant Mosque for Marseilles

For a long time there has been talk about a giant mosque to be built in Marseilles in the department of Bouches-du-Rhône. Now, the project is several steps closer to becoming a reality. This article comes from the regional news source La Provence. It begins by saying that any resident of the 15th arrondissement of Marseilles, who leaves and returns in three years, will not recognize the place:

A grand mosque measuring 2500 square meters, for 4000 persons, a Koranic school for 120 students, a restaurant accommodating 230, a library for 150 persons, an underground parking for 250 vehicles: the former stockyards will be converted into the largest Islamic site of the city and will spread out over 6500 square meters and will hold in all up to 8000 persons. The Mecca of Bouches-du-Rhône!

How to finance it is the question being worked on by Nourrédine Cheikh and the Association for the Grand Mosque, which he heads with the close collaboration of Guy Teissier (the UMP deputy from Bouches-du-Rhône). The land was provided by the city and the architectural firm has been chosen. Now donations are required (Marseilles has 200,000 Muslims), without which the project cannot materialize.

Note: The figure of 200,000 Muslims may be accurate, or not. I have seen 300,000 also given as the figure. It always depends on who is counted and who is doing the counting.

The article describes how a campaign will be launched to raise the funds needed. This will include money from foreign countries capped by law at 1,750 million euros per country. Nine million euros are needed for the building, and 22 million for the entire project. It is expected to be completed in 2011.

For now only Algeria has contributed, offering 170,000 euros. "But this is only an advance on the million euros given by Algeria every year to help the mosques of France." In other words, Algeria should give more. In this context, Jean-Noël Guérini, on a visit to Algiers to discuss the partnership between his department and the Algerian capital, received the confirmation of that country's participation in the funding.

Note: Jean-Noël Guérini, a member of the Socialist Party, is senator from Bouches-du-Rhône and president of the General Council of the department.

The above statement would seem to imply that Algeria will give more than its usual annual gift of one million euros. (A reader at Le Salon Beige facetiously suggests that Algeria might have obtained this money from subsidies sent by France in the first place.)

"In addition, we will write to other Arab countries," continues Nourrédine Cheikh. "The money should follow. One thing is certain: there will be no monopoly ("mainmise") on the mosque and the money will be collected in the most transparent manner possible. We will also be very vigilant regarding Islamist associations."

It should be pointed out that an amphitheater of 120 seats will also be built for conferences open to everybody. A strong sign from Cheikh who wants to show that far from any form of obscurantism, the grand mosque of Marseilles will be, above all, open to non-Muslims.

So this is a piece of news that was expected, but it should warm the hearts of the Muslims of Marseilles. During a meeting in Algiers, (...) Djamel Ould-Abbes, the Algerian minister of national solidarity and solidarity with the Algerian communities abroad, declared: "We want it to be the most important mosque in France."

The association set to manage the religious center is accepting money from any Arab country with whom France maintains diplomatic relations. And Moulay Abderrahmane Ghoul, regional vice-president of the CFCM declared: "We expect a lot from Algeria. But there will be no monopoly of one country on the project."

Reminder: CFCM refers to the French Council of the Muslim Religion, created by Interior Minister Sarkozy.

Facing Right

A while back there was a website called Face Right, run by John Wright, a man of few words, but meaningful ones. His posts were an intelligent and concise reflection of a person dedicated to traditional Western cultures and able to focus on certain themes without excessive analyses or editorializing. Then, unexpectedly, he stopped blogging. But he is back - has been back since August 2008 - and the traditional blogosphere is enriched for it.

I'm happy to report that his posts are still a combination of intelligence and conciseness, and the themes are ones that I know my readers will find stimulating: our survival, our national identities, Hispanic immigration in America, the growing possibility that the American Republican Party will become irrelevant and the need for American conservatives (all conservatives in fact) to resist. There is also news from Spain and France, and he is following the fragmenting of French nationalism. He quotes from GalliaWatch frequently, and I thank him sincerely for his interest in this site.

Beginning with August 2008 and working backwards, I browsed through his whole site and was particularly struck by a video on Lagos, Nigeria, part of a post entitled Survival. It is dated January 24, and is still on the homepage. John writes:

As the West faces the rest of the world we must be guided by a realistic assessment of its trajectory and that realistic assessment is that the third world will not transform itself. Instead, the overwhelming demographic pressure within it will continue to grow. So, from the most hardened neo-liberal to the most naive ethno-masochist, how can anyone believe that opening the borders will bring anything but the reduction of the conditions of life across the globe to the lowest common denominator - not the elevation of the third world, but the destruction of the first?

Click here for the first post in August, and work backwards as I did. Or, here for the homepage - either way, you'll find much of interest along the way.