Musical Chairs

The information in the following post is a condensation of an article in Nouvel Observateur.

Nicolas Sarkozy has reshuffled his cabinet, sending former ministers of Justice and Agriculture Rachida Dati and Michel Barnier, respectively, to the EU Parliament, and replacing them with Michèle Alliot-Marie and Bruno Le Maire. Besides her new post as Keeper of the Seals, Alliot-Marie, one of Sarkozy's most faithful and obedient servants, has been granted the rare and honorary title of Minister of State, a title held also by Jean-Louis Borloo, currently minister of Ecology and Environment.

Note: The Minister of State in France is a preeminent position, held by a personality who performs a multiplicity of duties, and who becomes, in fact, a "vice prime minister".

Brice Hortefeux, another Sarkozy favorite, has inherited the coveted post of Interior Minister from Alliot-Marie, whose major contributions seem to have been to watch as Kalashnikov rifles were used against the police, and to break the Ramadan fast every year with an obvious good appetite for the task.

Xavier Darcos leaves the post of minister of Education (apparently he wanted to leave) and goes to the ministry of Labor, while Luc Chatel, a government spokesman, takes over as Education minister, without giving up his post as spokesman.

A while back Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner had made waves when he said he regretted creating a position in his ministry for a secretary of State on Human Rights. The position had been held by Rama Yade, a Senegalese Socialist who was one of Sarkozy's glamorous female appointees of non-European heritage. The position itself has now been abolished, but Rama Yade will receive the strange consolation prize of secretary of State for Sports! Yade frequently defied Sarkozy. Whether she was right or wrong to do so, is not the issue here. She was defiant, that's enough. She has been demoted, but not fired.

Less fortunate (or are they more fortunate?) are former minister of Culture Christine Albanel and former minister of Housing Christine Boutin who were both removed from the government. If Albanel has any integrity she should be glad to be out of there, considering some of the "art" exhibits she was obligated to praise. Albanel is being punished for failing to pass into law the Hadopi bill making it illegal to download music and films.


As for Boutin (left), she is a mixed-up Catholic, who, all the while insisting she is a conservative and loyal to the Vatican's non-negotiable points on ethics and bioethics, nonetheless violated her own stated beliefs often enough for one to question her ability to think logically through her own philosophy. Time permitting, I will elaborate on her removal from office, which she decries as "inhuman" and which she attributes to her having a "foul Catholic mouth". At the same time she claims that the possibility of being sent as Ambassador of France to the Holy See is "interesting and serious."

Note: So Sarko removes her because of her "foul Catholic mouth", but offers to send her to the Holy See as Ambassador! Should she be angry, or grateful to be going to Rome?

Note: The Catholic websites quote her as saying she thought it was "my foul Catholic mouth". The Nouvel Observateur - a left-wing paper - quotes only her saying "my foul mouth".

Sarkozy did not obey his own diktat on parity, since there are now only 13 women vs 25 men in his ministries.


There are two appointments that are causing a lot talk: Frédéric Mitterand as minister of Culture and Pierre Lellouche (left), currently Sakozy's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, as secretary of State for European Affairs. Lellouche is passionately pro-Turkey, a fact that leads all the nationalist websites that had predicted Sarkozy would work surreptitiously for Turkey's accession to say: "I told you so".

One final note on this post: Le Salon Beige notes the emphasis on gay rights and anti-family activism in Sarkozy's new cabinet, and quotes a communiqué from GayLib, the gay rights association affiliated with Sarkozy's UMP party. The association cites three new appointments it is happy about:

- The return to the government of Christian Estrosi, mayor of Nice, who now allows civil union marriage ceremonies in his city hall, an example we hope will become generalized in all cities.

Note: Estrosi, a loyal and obedient Sarkozy-ite will be minister of Industry.

- The arrival of Pierre Lellouche, who advocated tougher penalties for those who commit acts of aggression of a homophobic nature and who has always been on the side of GayLib

- And finally, the appointment of Frédéric Mitterand, a great cultural figure, who has always insisted on transparency in matters relating to LGBT.

Note: If you didn't know, LGBT refers to Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender questions.


As for Mitterand (left), nephew of François, the esteemed movie maker is openly gay.

Please Don't Alienate the Muslims

Diana West has written an exceedingly well-reasoned and beautifully expressed analysis of the effects of Islam on America's most cherished possession: freedom of speech. It is very long, but well worth the effort. Here is a short excerpt from the beginning:

(...) Increasingly, however, Americans seem content to regard the First Amendment not as the fundamental working tool of democracy, but as a national heirloom, a kind of antique to admire rather than put to use. I don’t think many of my countrymen perceive how profoundly their attitude toward free speech has changed. But there is a difference between having freedom of speech and exercising freedom of speech, one that has become glaringly and distressingly obvious to me since September 11, 2001. So, while it is true that the US government is not Constitutionally empowered to make laws that censor Americans, it is also true, I believe, that Americans have come to censor themselves. But why?

I speak today in regard to the effect of Islam on speech in America - Islam as it has entered our national discussion and debate – and, I must add, lack of national discussion and debate - since the heinous Islamic attacks on the US nearly 8 years ago.

You may recall that just days after the attacks, then-President Bush said “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while.” At that same moment, the Pentagon, just across the river from the White House, was a colossal ruin, there was still carnage and mangled steel in the Pennsylvania woods, and an acrid fire of souls burned at the bottom of Manhattan. But once President Bush uttered that word “crusade” a new fear seemed to grip Washington and the wider world: namely, the fear that the President would “alienate” Muslims, even so-called “moderate Muslims.”

Read more at The Brussels Journal

The Failure of Laïcité

As stated in my previous post, a Salon Beige reader attempted to send three comments on the topic of Islam to Le Figaro. All three were rejected. Each of the three comments is followed by a kind of refrain:

1. The burqa is not even worn in Iran. (Just look at today's news photos).

The women here wear it to provoke. They would be only too happy to have a parliamentary committee set up. Let us not give them a soap box. HALDE might rule in their favor.

However, I would like to know the real reason why André Gerin, of the Communist Party, and his colleagues, raised this question of the burqa. Rather than becoming angry at the result, they ought to have become angry at the cause: the immigration of peoples who, because of their numbers and their cultures, are not assimilable.

Note: A reminder that André Gérin, a Communist, was the initiator of the move to ban the burqa.

In the name of "laïcité" they have felled anything liable to resist the establishment of Islam in France. By denouncing the Christian roots of our civilization and rejecting the values that went with it they have opened the door to the Trojan Horse. There is no longer anything that can prevent them from achieving their ends. For Islam is a proselytizing religion that vomits on the yellow-bellied laïcité, because for Islam there is not and can never be separation from the State.

2. There is no intelligent and open-minded Islam able to adapt to European values (...)

In Islamic lands, a non-Muslim is a second-class citizen. Look at what is happening in so-called moderate countries: the Copts are bullied in Egypt, those who own Bibles are condemned in Algeria, in Turkey it is forbidden to build new churches. Elsewhere, there is condemnation of anything that displays a cross.

In the name of "laïcité", etc... (same as above)

3. Only a committed "laïciste" (i.e., a person who espouses separation of Church and State) wins the approval of web moderators who block any comment pointing to a conquering Islam facing a West that has nothing to offer in opposition except a few parliamentary committees.

In the name of secular religion, France has abandoned all the values that could effectively resist this radical Islam. Tolerance is contrary to conviction: if I tolerate everything, how can I defend my own convictions? Islam by its nature proselytizes (as any religion ought to, otherwise what would be the reality of a faith if its adherents do not wish to share it?) and vomits on the yellow-bellied laïcité because for Islam there is not and can never be separation from the State.

Le Figaro censured the comments no doubt because they are critical of laïcité.

The reader informs us that Le Figaro is staunchly pro-laïcité, which in turn implies a total rejection of religion as a weapon against another religion, i.e., a total rejection of Christianity as a force employable by the French State to combat Islam. France cannot employ Christianity because France is not only spiritually de-Christianized, France is bound by laïcité. Laïcité cannot be a weapon against Islam because it is too weak, and Islam spits on it.

Why is laïcité so weak? As the reader says, there is the absence of a specific conviction. Second, laïcité by its nature, means Church/State separation, a notion completely rejected by Islam. The French State needed, at the outset, to acknowledge the incompatiblity of Islam with the law of 1905. Instead, it chose to circumvent the law by creating a bogus Islam tailored just for France - Sarkozy's pet project was the "Islam OF France." But in addition, the existing religious forces in France, i.e., Christianity and Judaism, that could be and should be creating obstacles to the growth of Islam, are instead welcoming it as a type of salvation. So the religious forces themselves have been emasculated, and are now incapable of distinguishing an enemy from a friend.

The profound irony is that by allowing in the Trojan Horse of Islam, France has destroyed her own laïcité, and is becoming, both openly and furtively, Islamic. But Le Figaro can't acknowledge this, any more than it acknowledges the old adage that you fight fire with fire, (or religion with religion).

Would the sight of thousands of burqas all over France change anything? It might. Which is why Sarkozy may pursue this idea of a parliamentary committee, and fight "heroically" for a ban on the burqa, and appear to the Western media as a "tough" defender of Western values.

Final observation: In 2004, after years of debate on headscarves, a law was finally passed banning them in the schools. Known as the law of March 15, 2004, it banned headscraves from public elementary and secondary schools, in the name of laïcité. Such a law was superfluous because the law of 1905 already banned all religious symbols from public places such as schools and government buildings. Furthermore, banning the scarves did nothing to stop Islamic immigration. It was an empty gesture, just as banning the burqa will be.

Final note: The French State (like any Western democracy in the same situation) could ban Islam on POLITICAL grounds, rather than religious ones, since Islam is a threat to the State, not just a threat to Christianity. Why this has not happened can be attributed to the false god of egalitarianism.

To Ban or Not To Ban?

The burqa - to ban it or not to ban it? - is a topic that is generating much debate at the websites. Most nationalists espouse the more realistic point of view of Yves Daoudal and Jean-Marie Le Pen, i.e., that the burqa is an indicator of the spread of Islamic immigration and to ban it is sheer hypocrisy on the part of those that created the problem in the first place but who refuse to face the consequences of their actions.

This article appeared at Le Salon Beige on June 22:

While the ruling class debates the burqa without questioning the compatibility of Islam with a democratic regime, and without making a connection (between the burqa) and an out-of-control immigrationist policy, several personalities and political parties are citing the Islamization of France as the underlying problem.

The article then quotes a recent communiqué from the MNR (Mouvement National Républicain), one of the breakaway parties that split from the Front National in 1999. It was then headed by Bruno Mégret, who is still associated with the movement:

The MNR notes that since the arrival of the Sarkozy era, we have witnessed a rapid development of Islam in France. The creation of the CFCM (French Council of the Muslim Faith) by the current president of the Republic was an encouragement to Muslims to develop and to, eventually, impose their law, a law that is, however, incompatible with the laws of the French Republic.

After dietary concessions, the official segregation of women, and the authorizations to build new mosques that are often illegally financed by the taxpayers, Islam progresses, as it has been urged to do for seven years, with the on-going aid of the UMP party.

The MNR therefore considers that the UMP deputies who today claim to oppose the burqa, have knowingly participated in the Islamization of our country. If they are sincere, they should resign immediately from the UMP and join the camp of those who have chosen to defend European civilization.

The MNR knows perfectly well that they will do nothing of the sort and that this false resistance is just another electoral maneuver that will be added to Sarkozy's catalogue of saber-rattling (...)

On the other hand, Carl Lang, head of the Parti de la France, another breakaway party (although Lang is still in some way connected to the FN), believes the burqa should be banned:

Sixty parliamentarians are pretending to be concerned over the burqa in France and are demanding the creation of a useless parliamentary committee to study the matter. And yet it was the parties of these very deputies that have been encouraging, for 40 years, on a planetary level, an immigration policy that is destroying our French and European identity.

Administrations, both left-wing and "right-wing" (Note: my quotation marks) have justified the illusion of the integration of ethnic communities all the while rejecting any notion of national assimilation.

Note: The above statement is not clear to me. Does he mean that the governments do not WANT national assimilation, or that they refuse to acknowledge the assimilation that has ALREADY taken place in the form of métissage? I tend to think he means that the governments extol the virtues of integration, but close their eyes to the unpleasant reality that ensues .

Behind the myth of national integration, the obvious reality today is one of national disintegration. We prefer our rural France with her country churches to a rural France with her mosques.

The Parti de la France demands the banning of the burqa. We are not in the land of Islam. Let us remain masters in our own house!

Note: He either misses, or avoids, the point that banning the burqa does not mean banning Islam. Quite the contrary... If he deplores the "disintegration" of the nation, then a visible sign of the cause of such disintegration should remain... visible.

Finally, Robert Spieler, head of the Nouvelle Droite Populaire (NDP), still another new nationalist/sovereigntist party states bluntly:

It is not the burqa that must be banned, it is the presence of Islam in our land!

The comments to the Salon Beige article are interesting, in particular one from a reader who posts three comments that he sent to Le Figaro, and that were censured. I would like to deal with that in a separate post.

As a final note, the Times of India reports :

The Islamic seminary of Dar-ul-Uloom Deoband is contemplating a fatwa against buying goods made in France to protest the anti-burqa comments of French president Nicolas Sarkozy.

Mufti Maulana Arshad Faruqui of Dar-ul-Ufba, the fatwa department of the seminary, said it would also call for a boycott of Sarkozy. "If necessary, an edict may be issued to all followers ordering them to shun French merchandise," Maulana Faruqui said.

He said the comment was "one of the most shameful chapters of the mankind". By labelling burqa, 'naqab' or 'purdah' as a symbol of female subjugation, the French president has "violated" the law of his own country, which guarantees its citizens the right to practice their religion unhindered, he added.

"The utterances are an evil ploy aimed at bringing disrepute to France." Faruqui said the statement delivered in the French parliament reeks of a "conspiracy against Christianity too" as even Virgin Mary has always been painted or sculpted with her head covered.

The Burqa - False Problem, False Solutions

My previous post mentioned the position taken by Nicolas Sarkozy on the burqa - the full-length covering worn by some Muslim women. His position was a critical moment in his June 22 address to Congress:

"The burqa will not be welcome on the territory of the Republic..."

In its forcefulness and its pro-Western outlook his latest remark, stating clearly that such a garment has no place on French territory because it symbolizes the degraded status of women, runs counter to his previous remark on a similar subject. The French press has had numerous articles on this recent toughening of his earlier, more liberal attitude. Many applaud his courage. But, the burqa is much more than a question of a woman's place in society, be it Muslim or French. It is, rather, the visible evidence of an unpleasant truth.

It is interesting to note that the original initiative for a law banning the burqa came from the Communists.

Once again, I turn to Yves Daoudal's weekly journal Nº 41, for a general summary of the situation:

The Communist mayor of Vénissieux, André Gérin, requested the formation of a parliamentary committee to study the wearing of the burqa and the niqab in the street, making no attempt to disguise his intention of passing legislation that bans such garments in public places. Two other Communist deputies, 7 Socialists, 43 UMP party members, 3 members of the Nouveau Centre, and 3 independents followed suit. Then, other UMP deputies joined in.

The article speaks of the stormy debate triggered by the actions of the deputies, and of Sarkozy's volte-face:

This is the same Sarkozy who, on June 6, had declared himself to be in "complete agreement" with Barack Obama, who had said in Cairo:

"Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid preventing Muslims from practicing their religion as they so choose, for example, by dictating what Muslim women can wear."

(...) The first thing one observes is that these deputies, who represent the entire political spectrum, having hooked up with a committed Stalinist, are all worried about a phenomenon that their own parties have engendered. For when they were in power, it was these parties that opened wide the flood gates to immigration, that pushed and continue to push immigration, that sang in every key about how immigration was France's good fortune, and that demonized the patriots who warned about the dangers France would face, and that justified laws that dragged anyone who criticized Islam before the courts, and that never cease to clamor for non-discrimination...

But wait a minute. Of course it is discriminatory to forbid women from dressing according to their belief... And to those who say that these women are forced to dress this way and need to be liberated, it is easy to respond that many of these women do it voluntarily, the best proof of this being that many of them are ethnic Frenchwomen who "converted". And those women all tell the same story of how they met a Muslim man, and began by wearing a scarf, then the hijab, then the niqab, as they gradually progressed into Islamic law...

The fact of the matter is that we are seeing more and more burqas and niqabs in our streets, as in the Maghreb or in Egypt, where, only a few years ago, we hardly saw more of them than in France.

Note: He is saying that there are more burqas and niqabs in North Africa and Egypt than there were a few years ago, something I was not aware of.

The debate is ridiculous. As ridiculous as the ban on hoods in street demonstrations. The decree banning hoods was passed last Saturday, in the middle of the debate on the burqa. More and more laws that serve no purpose are piling up. Because French law has always explicitly banned the wearing of anything that masks the face, except during a carnival. Therefore the law has always banned the wearing of niqabs and burqas. If you don't want to see hoods or burqas, you have only to enforce the law...

Note: The hoods he refers to are those frightening face coverings worn by rioters.

He goes on to explain that Jean-Marie Le Pen is the only one he knows of to have pointed this out.

We all know Jean-Marie Le Pen's opinion on this subject, because he has expressed it many times: the increase in the number of veiled women indicates to everyone the progression of immigration on our territory.

This opinion takes on special meaning today. Because these deputies who no longer want to see niqabs or burqas have no intention of defending French identity. They are immigrationists. Their goal, hidden under the cover of an all-purpose "laïcité", is just that - to hide the progression of the most Islamist immigration and the most radical form of Islam.

And they don't run out of steam when it comes to calling for respect for "laïcité", when they are the very ones who finance the mosques (...)

If we forbid women to wear the niqab, they will stop, but they will still be on our soil. It is better to know whom you are dealing with, both in this case, and in general.

The habit does not make the monk, but the proverb can be reversed: one can be a monk without the habit. Women without their niqab will still be Islamists, and even more so since they will feel persecuted.

This is typical of a false problem to which are brought false solutions, based on false principles.

The real problem is one of Islamic immigration. As my good friend Marshall de la Palice says: as long as there is Islamic immigration, there will be a progression of Islamism. Closing your eyes to the truth by banning the niqab changes nothing.

Therefore, it is urgent that immigration be stopped. And it is urgent to stop the false dogma repeated everywhere that Islam is "a religion like the others" and that we must respect it "like the others". The political leaders ought to have at least enough curiosity to ponder what Islam really is. The bishops and the priests too, who participate fully in this illusion of a "religion like the others", and who deceive the Catholic faithful. The bishops' job is not to participate in the inauguration of mosques, but to convert the Muslims.

French readers can consult Jean-Marie Le Pen's video from his "journal de bord". The part about the burqa starts approximately 3 minutes 40 seconds into the discussion.

An English-language discussion on the story can be found at Lawrence Auster's VFR.

Illustration from Le Point.

Reforms, Reshuffling and Repetition

Many months ago, when the combined houses of Parliament met in Versailles to vote on Constitutional reforms, Nicolas Sarkozy let it be known that, in emulation of the American system, he would give a French version of the SOTU address every year. And so he did today, Monday, June 22.

The combined houses, known as the Congress, met to hear their leader deliver the first "state of the nation" address, in which he ran through a list of reforms, measures and plans on a wide variety of topics, although much of it sounded very familiar.

Translating Sarkozy's speeches is one form of self-punishment I renounced long ago. There is sure to be an English-language version posted at the French government website soon. So I am confining myself to a few sound bites provided by Le Figaro:

Nicolas Sarkozy announced his intention to take out a loan in order to cope with the huge deficit facing the country. The money would be borrowed either from financial markets or from the French people.

Note: The idea of borrowing from the people did not go down very well with Le Figaro readers.

The loan would be exclusively to finance national priorities. Three months of discussions with Parliament, the labor unions, and economic and cultural leaders would be needed to determine these priorities and to establish the exact amount of the loan.

He promised not to raise taxes.

Note: It isn't clear how he will "borrow" the money from the people without new taxes, unless he means to borrow from the national health or retirement funds.

He will reexamine the possibility of reforming the retirement program, but the final decisions are put off until 2010.

All those laid off because of the financial crisis should be able to keep their salary level and receive job training for one year. He also wants massive measures in favor of part-time work and he would extend the contract of professional transition.

Note: The contract of professional transition (CTP) was launched in 2005 as a means of fighting unemployment. Those who are unemployed sign the CTP for a period of 8 to 12 months. During this time the unemployed person receives job training and placement in a private or public enterprise. He is assured 90% of his previous salary.

There is some information (in French) about the CTP here.

The burqa - the full covering worn by Muslim women - is not welcome on French territory. "It is not a religious sign, but a sign of servitude," said Sarkozy. It will be up to Parliament to decide upon the wording of a bill on this issue.

Note: His remarks on the burqa made headlines in the English-language press as well. Some called his speech "historic", partly because he was addressing the Congress for the first time, and partly because of his stand on Muslim dress. I will have more to say on this in a subsequent post.

Those interested in an English-language article on the burqa can read the Guardian (among many other sites).

He made the following comment on discrimination:

"Who cannot see that our example of integration is no longer working?" Sarkozy asked. The fight against discrimination will be the priority of his new government: "It must not be based on ethnic criteria, but on social criteria," he added to the applause of his audience.

Note: He seems to be saying that he will solve the problem of integration through social programs, i.e. housing, employment, education, etc... without using the ethnicity of the beneficiaries as criteria. However, for now, I'm not entirely sure what he means. According to Le Point he also said:

"Who cannot see that our example of integration is no longer working? It produces inequality and resentment. To achieve equality, we will have to give more to those who have less."

He intends to defend the law against free downloading of music and films, known as "Hadopi", on grounds that there can be no "lawless zones":

"By defending authors' rights, I am not only defending artistic creation. I am defending also the idea that I have of a free society where the freedom of each person is based on the respect of the rights of others. It is also the future of our culture, the future of creativity that I am defending. That is why I will pursue this to the end", he declared.

In accordance with his policies on the environment, he intends to tax polluters.

He deplored the state of French prisons, saying that 82,000 sentences had not been carried out for want of space. He announced the construction of "new prisons and new spaces in hospitals for prisoners suffering from psychiatric disorders."

Note: He would do better to stop crime by stopping the invasion of foreigners apt to commit crimes. Then he wouldn't need new prisons. But, of course, that is not his intention.

Finally, he will reform local collectivities (or regions), through a "reduction in the number of regional and departmental elected officials."

An English-language version of much of the above material appears at Business Week.

Sarkozy is reshuffling his cabinet. This was not at all unexpected. We knew that Minister of Justice Rachida Dati and Minister of Agriculture Michel Barnier would be leaving to join the EU Parliament. It also turns out that Brice Hortefeux, currently Minister of Labor, will become Minister of the Interior, and that Xavier Darcos, currently Minister of Education will move to Labor. Michèle Alliot-Marie will move from Interior to the coveted post of Minister of Justice. But the big surprise was the appointment of Frédéric Mitterand as Minister of Culture replacing Christine Albanel. He is the nephew of François Mitterand, but his political affiliations are not clear. The chairman of the Socialist Party Martine Aubry insists he was never a Socialist.

I will have more on this also in a subsequent post.

Sex Crimes On the Rise

A recent article in Le Figaro reveals that sexual violence is on the rise in France. Rapes constitute three-quarters of the crimes committed by young persons under the age of 18. In Nº 40 of his weekly journal, available through subscription, Yves Daoudal analyzes the problem from a different perspective than that of the Le Figaro:

The evidence is frightening. Today rapes represent three-quarters of the crimes committed by those under 18. And more than half of those under 13 who get into trouble with the law are indicted for acts of a sexual nature (yes: under the age of 13). One thousand adolescents are implicated every year in matters relating to sexual assaults or rapes: the figures have increased 50% in ten years.

We're told that for the first time this year, the Chancery has become aware of the full measure of this phenomenon. And that the Youth Protection Service is seeking answers.

He then quotes from the Figaro article the explanations of the so-called experts, who attempt to explain the behavior of these young persons through the usual psycho-babble. But who never get close to the crux of the problem.

What catches one's eye immediately is that the Chancery has clearly not taken "the full measure of this phenomenon." And that the Youth Protection Service is not about to find any answers...

It is noteworthy that the ministry of justice, Le Figaro and its "specialists", all follow assiduously a politically correct line, and consequently do not allow themselves to see what this is really about. Since no diagnosis can be made, no remedy can be found. An observer from Mars might be led to think that these articles and the "experts" from the ministry have no idea what is happening in our society, particularly in the "neighborhoods." Moreover, we are told from the start that "this reality spares no milieu". As if the gang rapes were not a specialty of the ethnic neighborhoods and marked by racism: for this is really about humiliating a "white woman". But as everyone knows racism is a one-way street. So mum's the word.

The media accounts of crimes, and prison statistics as well, leave no doubt as to the ethnic origin of a great many criminals, especially sex offenders. But you can't say it, because the dogma states that immigration is France's good fortune. But the fact remains that the reality is there, in front of you. In the big city prisons, the majority of inmates are Muslim. It is not an invention of the "extreme-right."

Numerous reports and studies, have shown that in these environments the parents are remiss first, and the young do whatever they want, going so far as to terrorize the neighborhood. The same studies have shown the importance of pornographic movies that the young, and the very young, watch continuously, thinking that this is how it is in real life. Women are sexual objects, prey, and even if it is not considered seemly to say so, it is not insignificant that the entire Arab-Muslim tradition regards women as inferior, and good only to serve as a field of labor for men when they so desire it, as the Koran explicitly says.

That is not the only explanation, but if you refute it from the start, you are condemning yourself to an absence of will to take action (but it does seem to be the case that no one wants to take action).

It is also true that pornography and extreme violence affect larger layers of our society. It is especially true that the "absence of norms", "educational failings", and "complex family histories" are much more widespread today.

But you have to know what you want. We promote divorce, we praise "extended" families which are really decomposed families, we offer personalities that reject all emotional stability as models, we describe sexual deviations as normal, we make of abortion a right of women when it is the most abject form of violence, we describe any social norm as "fascist", we turn religion - genuine religion - into something inept, even scandalous and inimical to freedom. We have come to the point, today, where we attempt to suppress the sexual identity given to us by nature by persuading everyone that they can give themselves a "gender identity".

And then we're surprised to find that the young no longer have a set of standards to live by...

Viewed from this angle, the triumphant election of Daniel Cohn-Bendit, preceded by his altercation with François Bayrou is significant. Daniel Cohn-Bendit is the personification of the 1968 ideology: it is forbidden to forbid. Which means: it is forbidden to set standards.

And while François Bayrou became indignant at the erotic games of pedophilia that Cohn-Bendit boasted about, it was Bayrou who was subjected to public vindictiveness...

When you have reached that point, and at the same time, as in schizophrenia, any summer camp counselor must be on his guard against the slightest gesture of tenderness or consolation for fear of being dragged into court, it is obviously the society as a whole that has lost its standards. And crime cannot help but increase, punctuated by the empty and soothing lamentations from the authorities.

Photo of Cohn-Bendit during his campaign from Flickr.


Update: July 6, 2009 - Comments have been definitively closed for this article. Enough is enough.

The Origins of the French Language

French readers may be interested in reading a brief history of the French language, posted at François Desouche. Drawn from a 1997 article in Pour la Science by Michèle Perret, professor of linguistics at the University of Paris - Nanterre, it traces the complicated melding of three sources: the Celtic, Roman and Frankish civilizations and their languages. Latin of course was dominant, even though the Romans themselves never intended to force their language on the Gauls. But the most interesting thing is the revelation that what was to become French was actually a language reconstructed by clerics and priests, based on Latin, but accessible to everyone. It was not a dialect because it rose above the dialects in order to reach everyone.

The article illustrates the importance of language as an invention, rather than as something spontaneous that just evolved on its own, although that too is part of the process.

The first text written in this proto-French language was le Serment de Strasbourg (842) - the oath of Strasbourg, a document in which the partition of the land into three kingdoms, each ruled by one of the three grandsons of Charlemagne: Louis, Lothair, and Charles, was ratified by mutual oaths of loyalty taken by Charles and Louis. Lothair's kingdom was a buffer zone between the other two. Part of Louis' oath appears above, and below, in a more readable font:

“Pro Deo amur et pro Christian poblo et nostro commun salvament, d'ist di in avant, in quant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo et in ajudha et in cadhuna cosa, si cum om per dreit son fradra salvar dift, in o quid il me altresi fazet, et ab Ludher nul plaid numquam prindrai, qui, meon vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno sit.”

Translated into English, it reads:

“For the love of God and for Christendom and our common salvation, from this day onwards, as God will give me the wisdom and power, I shall protect this brother of mine Charles, with aid or anything else, as one ought to protect one's brother, so that he may do the same for me, and I shall never knowingly make any covenant with Lothair that would harm this brother of mine Charles.” (Wikipedia)

Wikipedia also has an English-language page on the origins of French, though it doesn't quite cover the same ground as the Michèle Perret article.

Below, a map of the three kingdoms. Louis inherited the green area, Charles, the yellow.

Air France - Nebulous Theories

There are some interesting developments in the investigation into the Air France disaster of June 1. Both Le Figaro and Le Monde have somewhat misleading headlines: the former declares that the "investigators are 'close' to understanding", the latter states that the "investigators are 'close to their goal'". Le Monde readers were quick to point out the discrepancy between the headline and the substance of the article that reveals that, in fact, they don't know what happened. They only know what did not happen, namely that lightening did not strike the plane, which they knew from the beginning, since planes do not crash because of lightening. I am using Le Figaro here:

More than two weeks after the crash of flight AF447 off the coast of Brazil, the BEA (similar to our FAA) stated on June 17 that it believed it was coming close "to the goal" of understanding the causes of the crash of the Airbus. "Considering all the work we've done and everything we have, I think we are perhaps indeed closing in a little," confided Paul-Louis Arslanian, head of the BEA, during a press conference.

Note: Perhaps? Indeed? A little? What is he saying?

"The maximum is being done to find either the flight recorders or the bodies and we cannot say today where we will have success." In other words, the black boxes that could greatly help the investigation have still not been located. They are supposed to emit signals for two more weeks. The BEA also noted that it was impossible to recover the entire plane or even all of the 228 bodies. Tuesday night the 50th body had been recovered by the Brazilian navy.

When asked if the airline companies had been too hasty in changing their Pitot tubes, he said one shouldn't confuse the investigation with the legitimate concern of the companies who did not want to take any risk. "At the end of the investigation we will be able to that it was or was not necessary, that it was useful or not useful. We are faced with a complex problem - we don't know everything", he added.

Note: Judging from this article they don't know anything. This doublespeak did not go down well with Le Figaro readers who lambasted the article and the authorities. Many believe it was an attack, others attempt to explain how a technical failure could have produced such a catastrophe, citing in particular the computerized system of the new planes that leaves little room for the pilot to maneuver manually. This has been a problem with the Airbus from the start.

The article closes with these additional notes of interest:

The autopsies reveal multiple fractures.

Paul-Louis Arslanian explained that the French doctor sent to Brazil, a specialist in this type of case, had been barred by local authorities from the autopsy procedures.

Wednesday evening, a spokesman for the Brazilian forensics team, who wished to remain anonymous, indicated that the victims had multiple fractures in the legs, hips and arms.

According to Frank Ciacco, a forensics expert with the FAA, questioned by the Associated Press, these injuries suggest an explosion in mid-flight. An hypothesis supported also by the discovery of large pieces of the Airbus 330-200 (...) According Ciacco, the bodies and the debris would be more seriously fragmented if the plane had disintegrated only from contact with the water.

The Brazilian press had already revealed that the bodies bore no trace of burns.

Another article from Le Figaro dated June 18 stresses the hypothesis of a mid-flight "dislocation", i.e., dismemberment of the plane:

Note: I don't know what they mean by "dismemberment" if not "disintegration". How is that different from an explosion (not necessarily a bomb, but some sort of malfunction that caused the plane to come apart)?

(...) the absence of clothing on the victims also reinforces the hypothesis of a mid-flight "dismemberment", since in such cases, the clothing is torn off by the violence of the wind ("tourbillon").

Curiously, this information was not communcated on Wednesday by the French authorities who affirmed that their doctor, a specialist in airplane crashes, had not been present at the autopsies performed in Recife. Wednesday morning, before Brazil revealed the condition of the bodies, the BEA expressed regrets at not being part of the team of experts. "I am not happy," explained Paul-Louis Arslanian, director of the BEA. "I hope there will be an explanation." A few hours later, a spokesman for Public Security in Recife replied that the local authorities had not been informed of the presence of an expert sent by the BEA. (...)

It is difficult to interpret the small amount of information divulged so far by the French authorities. Is it a necessary restraint in the interests of the investigation, or a real lack of proof and clues? At any rate, the families of the victims are denouncing this lack of "humanity." (...)

There was one piece of news that appeared as a Figaro "flash" and disappeared so fast I didn't have time to download it. It is probably somewhere in Le Figaro's archives, but I could not find it. However, I traced it to a forum where a long discussion of the plane crash takes up at least 9 pages. One of the participants quotes the item as it appeared in L'Express, and at last I was able to find the article, dated June 9, there:

The hypothesis of an attack against Airbus A330 has not been ruled out, even if it is the least probable.

French Intelligence Services have revealed that on the passenger list there were two names corresponding to persons known for their connection to Islamist terrorism.

Identification remains incomplete for lack of data on the date of birth of the suspects; the names could be simple homonyms. No one has seriously claimed responsibility. In all, 228 persons lost their lives in the worst crash in the history of Air France.

Note: The above is to be taken with extreme caution. It may have been false information. At any rate, I have not seen verification one way or the other from the Interior Ministry.

If anyone has more information on this rumor, please let me know.

Another theory discussed at L'Express is that of a sudden drop from the sky:

The first débris from the Air France Airbus seem to indicate that its fall was sudden and it did not explode in mid-air (...) Former pilot Ari Germano said he was taken with "at least one of the photos" (...) According to him, the photo seemed to indicate that the passengers were taken by surprise and that the tragedy happened so fast that the crew did not have time to react. (...) "The seats used by the crew were folded and you could see the seat belts hanging. That suggests that the crew were walking around in the aisles. In case of an alert or any immediate risk, the crew would have stayed seated," declared Germano. (...)

A reminder to everyone that almost everything is speculation at this point. Every day there is a new hypothesis. If our own accidents are any guide, whenever there is a "mysterious crash" the authorities will eventually advance one theory that seems likely to be accepted as the most probable explanation, but no definitive answers will be forthcoming. Only when the crash is not "mysterious" and the black boxes give concrete evidence, can we know for sure what happened.

America! We Don't Recognize You

I guess you all heard about Bill Clinton's speech to the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee. If not, read about it at My Way News. Here's the beginning:

Former President Bill Clinton said Saturday that Americans should be mindful of the nation's changing demographics, which led to the election of Barack Obama as president.

He told an Arab-American audience of 1,000 people that the U.S. is no longer just a black-white country, nor a country that is dominated by Christians and a powerful Jewish minority, given the growing numbers of Muslims, Hindus and other religious groups here.

Clinton said by 2050 the U.S. will no longer have a majority of people with European heritage and that in an interdependent world "this is a very positive thing."

Speaking in a hotel ballroom to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee during its annual convention, Clinton also praised Obama's speech in Cairo, Egypt, that was focused on the Arab world.

There's a French summary of the event at Polemia.

Just for the record, the entire text of Obama's Cairo speech is printed at the New York Times (8 pages), among other sites. A complete capitulation not only to multi-culturalism, but especially to Islam.

Villiers-le-Bel Revisited

A long article in Le Monde updates the situation in the town of Villiers-le-Bel, department of Val-d'Oise and scene of a major uprising in November 2007, when two youths on a motorcycle (photo above) were killed by a police car during a chase. Their deaths triggered several days and nights of violence and vandalism. You can review the event at four of my posts from 2007, in chronological order: one, two, three, four.

The article, that had to be abridged, moves from a description of the current situation into a more politically correct analysis of the events, emphasizing the feeling of abandonment and hopelessness among the young residents and their accusations against the police:

During the night, a small group of teens, probably about 15 years of age, opened an electrical box. Wires were pulled out, a short circuit ensued and the city's lights went out. It is 11:00 p.m. on Friday, June 12, and the sensitive neighborhoods in Villiers-le-Bel are preparing for another tense night. Like almost every weekend for the past month, in a frightening routine, the face-off between adolescents and police is about to begin. A half-hour earlier, broken bottles had already been hurled at a patrol car. This time, the police and firemen are the targets of "mortar shells" - fire crackers launched from a plastic tube several yards away.

A dozen deafening explosions, then bouquets of sparks fly above the police. The arrival of reinforcements equipped with helmets, shields, rubber bullets and tear gas grenades puts an end to the confrontation ten minutes later. "They will calm down this evening, but they'll start up again tomorrow", comments one disabused father watching the scene from a parking lot. The teens scatter inside the apartment complex. Until the next time.

A year and a half after the riots of 2007, the climate has once again deteriorated in this city of 27,000 inhabitants, north of Paris. Since early May this is the fourth time that groups of youths violently attack the police.

The article describes similar events that occurred on May 9, June 5 and 6, and June 11. Young adults known as the "big brothers" who act as spokesmen for the youth have stated that the situation is "very troubling". These "big brothers", following the advice of a rapper named Larsen whom they trust, agreed to meet with Fadela Amara, Sarkozy's minister on urban affairs.

These unofficial "managers" of the neighborhood - shop owners, heads of associations, self-made CEO's - say they fear an implosion and are sending out a warning concerning the relations between the young persons and the police and mayor. Concerning too the indifference of French society towards the difficulties endured in the sensitive suburbs. "We are two steps from a catastrophe. There was hatred in the youngsters, today it is worse. It has deteriorated in a year," explains Saïd, 28, a well-known figure in the neighborhood. "When there are no standards, no future, they turn to kamikaze-style behavior," added another merchant who wished to remain anonymous.

A police patrol arrives and the two groups - police on one side, residents on the other - stare at each other like statues. The police, armed with Flash-Balls (rubber bullets) hug the sides of the buildings to avoid being hit by projectiles. They belong to the UTEQ (Neighborhood Territorial Unit) a measure dreamed up by Interior Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie, to replace the neighborhood police. But for now, their ability to form ties with the inhabitants remains largely theoretical.

At night, more reinforcements - six vans of riot police, at least three civilian cars, a patrol wagon, and two armored vans are stationed permanently close to the police on their beat. The police authorities explain that this deployment of forces is temporary: "The objective is for the patrols to eventually be able to operate without them. But if we let our guard down too quickly, there will be incidents immediately." A neighborhood spokesman laments: "The police come here as if to fight guerilla warfare. They're dressed like Robocop and act as if they are in occupied territory."

Note: They got that right.

The rest of the article is largely devoted to complaints of the residents of Villiers-le-Bel.

Both police and "big brothers" agree on one point - the profile of the rioters. They are between 13 and 16 years of age, an age and a time of year when school closings create destructive behavior. But for the police, it is a question of criminal behavior: "Our presence disturbs the 'thugocracy'. The incidents are caused by the youth - a minority - who use a guerilla strategy on us. They fight for their territory," explains commissioner Auréal, who also mentions the trafficking of cars and marijuana.

The "big brothers" insist that the "youngsters" were traumatized two years ago: "First there was the death of our friends. Then two nights of rioting when they took power. Do you know what that does to the minds of adolescents?" Rapper Larsen adds: "They are closed up in Villiers-le-Bel, in their schools, in their neighborhoods. With the same buddies, who have the same view of things. When there's an airplane crash they send in psychologists. For the kids who experienced the 2007 riots, there's nothing."

The article closes with a discussion of the deterioration of housing units, the slowness of the government to act on urban problems, and the feeling that there will never be "justice" for those who suffered through 2007. The investigation into the 2007 riots is still underway. Neighborhood resident Saïd summarized his feelings:

"The widespread belief is that there is one justice for the police, and another for the youth in the ghettoes."

I have very little to add. We have been through similar things here and we still experience serious crimes on a daily basis committed primarily by blacks and Hispanic immigrants. We spent millions trying to help the ghettoes - in vain. We gave up our standards in favor of affirmative action - in vain. Bush apologized for hurricane Katrina, even though he had nothing to do with it - in vain. This is the plight of white European societies who have either caved in to the demands of the non-assimilable elements, or who have deliberately opened their doors to them, out of suicidal naïveté (or is it diabolical conspiracy?)

The photo below of a burning car is from my files. I'm not sure which riot it was - does it really matter?

An Innovative School

Philippe de Villiers has the courage of his convictions, at least in the case of a new school for 600 pupils he is founding in Saint-Hilaire de Loulay in Vendée, where he is president of the General Council, a position very roughly equivalent to governor. This article comes from a local paper:

An innovative middle school (collège) will soon see the light of day in Vendée. The newly created establishment will be a national benchmark. Philippe de Villiers and Gérald Chaix, superintendent of the Nantes school district, have kicked off the first stage of this pioneering educational project. (...)

"The ministry of National Education is following this project very attentively. It hopes to use this school as a model for the nation," emphasizes Gérald Chaix.

"It is through education that we will give the youth of Vendée all the tools necessary for success," explains Philippe de Villiers. We are advancing from a simple system of instruction to a system of education. This educational model will be based on individual tutoring and on residency in the school. It includes a strong general culture, but also social engagement on the part of the pupils."

The youngsters who will be going to school in Saint-Hilaire de Loulay will benefit from training that goes far beyond the mere teaching of traditional subject matter. Their sports-studies curriculum will be calibrated, allowing them time to learn to become responsive to the arts and culture and to form their judgment.

Latin and Greek, theater and literature, tests on general culture and even courses on the historical and artistic heritage of France will be part of the curriculum for the future pupils of this school. Their heads will be "well-filled and well made" at the same time, and they will be prepared in concrete terms to take their responsibilities and to assure their future.

They will spend their school week in residence: "This will be a cultural residency," Philippe de Villiers points out. "The pupils will attend various events, for example, the Peking Ballet, a classical music concert or even a play, that are all masterpieces of humanity and that form judgment." Two evenings of general culture will be organized each week for the introduction to masterpieces of French culture.

Thanks to the tutoring system, every youngster will be monitored as he pursues his studies. Each teacher will be available to listen and to help the pupils think about what they want to do with their lives professionally, or to support them when necessary.

Each week, the pupils will spend half a day becoming involved in community service, through visits to the elderly or handicapped, or through specific projects.

The school seems to be a mix of rigorous work (Latin and Greek) and the development of social consciousness, closer perhaps in some ways to our Quaker schools than to a traditional boarding school, the image of which is often stern and grim, if not cruel. Sidwell Friends, in Washington D.C., is the school of choice for many elected officials with school-age children. I believe Chelsea Clinton went there, and now the Obama children are attending. Quaker schools are good, but they emphasize egalitarianism, if not outright socialism. This passage is taken from Sidwell's homepage:

The rigorous curriculum focuses on basic skills, a disciplined manner of inquiry, individual creativity, and good study habits. Students are encouraged to cooperate rather than to compete and to share their special gifts and talents.

Note that cooperation is valued over competition.

And this from the webpage on grades 7/8:

The basic organizational structure in the seventh and eighth grade is the team. There are three teams of approximately sixty-four students and six advisors in the Middle School, and they are named Land, Sea, and Sky in the spirit of our new green building. English and Social Studies classes take place in the team, and the team plans a number of activities together over the course of the year.

Here's the 7/8 grade Social Studies program:

The Social Studies program for 7th grade covers issues in United States history. Topics to be studied include, but are not limited to, Native Americans, the Colonial Era, the American Revolution, the Constitution, the causes of the Civil War, Immigration, the Civil Rights Movement, and 20th Century Foreign Policy. Eighth graders begin a two-year study of world history. The 8th grade portion of the course examines the rise of civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean, Africa, China, Europe, the Islamic world, and the Americas. They complete the year with a study of medieval Europe. The second part of this course, covering the Renaissance Reformation to the 20th Century, will be taken in 9th grade.

Note: The inclusion of the Islamic world must be fairly recent.

Here are some statistics:

For the 2008-2009 school year, 1,097 students (553 boys and 544 girls) are enrolled. Thirty nine percent of the student body are students of color. Twenty-two percent of the student body receive almost $5 million of need-based financial assistance. The School employs 145 teachers and 103 administrative and support staff. Tuitions for the 2008-2009 school year are $28,442 (prekindergarten-grade 4) and $29,442 (grades 5-12).

Note: Imagine telling a French student he would have to pay 29,000 euro for his education!

Sidwell Friends School is committed as an institution to the ideal of diversity with regard to age, economic background, ethnicity, gender, physical disability, political affiliation, race and sexual orientation in its student body, faculty and staff.

Philippe de Villiers' s school is certainly more traditional in its philosophy than Sidwell, but his idea of a permanent tutor to guide the child through the shoals of education seems to reduce the competitive aspects and to give the child a somewhat easier time than most of us had. In high school, when I needed a math tutor, my parents had to pay for one. And it was only to help me get through the mid-term exams. I was back on my own after that. Tutoring and mentoring were minimal when I went to school. The idea back then was that if you needed constant tutoring or supportive services, you were probably taking courses that were too difficult for you.

Note: French readers may be interested in reading this very sarcastic reaction by one J.F. Launay. The gist is that PDV's school is an unwelcome throwback to the Jesuit schools of yesteryear, with their residency requirement and their charitable works. The author also wonders how the pupils will be recruited, implying that diversity will not be a priority for Philippe de Villiers whom he scornfully regards as anything but modest.

Reactions at Le Salon Beige were overwhelmingly favorable.

Dangerous Commitment

An item in Novopress, using Le Figaro as its source, announces the stunning news that is creating a stir at all the websites, concerning France's secret commitment to fight for the United Arab Emirates:

According to Le Figaro, June 15, the secret clauses of an agreement concluded at the end of May between Paris and Abu Dhabi commit France to defend the seven Emirates "by all the military means at her disposal". This would include nuclear weapons as well.

Note: The source article in Le Figaro points out that the word "nuclear" does not appear in the text:

"It would be contrary to the philosophy of dissuasion, which consists of saying the least possible on the doctrine of use", explained a diplomat who consulted the agreement.

Novopress goes on:

This clause that places the Emirates under the protection of the French nuclear umbrella appears to be more binding than article 5 of the NATO treaty that commits the member nations to help one another when one of them is attacked.

It is an agreement of incalculable consequences for the security of France, at moment when Iran intends to develop nuclear weaponry, thus constituting as serious a threat for the oil-rich monarchies as for Israel.

On May 26, President Sarkozy inaugurated a permanent French military base in Abu Dhabi. This complex of 400 men that includes a naval base, an air base and a training camp, situated on the banks of the Ormuz strait facing Iran "illustrates the responsibilities that France, a global power, intends to take on alongside its privileged partners in a one of the world's nerve centers", declared the French president on this occasion. It was an official visit on behalf of civilian nuclear energy as well, since the management of the Areva consortium accompanied the president.

During his presidential campaign in 2007, candidate Sarkozy had promised the French people to reexamine the defense agreements linking France to her allies, to have them approved by Parliament and to make them public. Clearly, a promise that was meant only for those who placed him in office.

Note: Some Figaro readers wonder how such a "secret" agreement came to be made public and whether or not Le Figaro has a right to print such confidential information. Most of the comments I read there were unfavorable.

Below, Sarkozy in Abu Dhabi.