Besson Does an About-Face
Will the real Eric Besson please stand up!
« La France n’est ni un peuple, ni une langue, ni un territoire, ni une religion, c’est un conglomérat de peuples qui veulent vivre ensemble.
Il n’y a pas de Français de souche, il n’y a qu’une France de métissage »
In a highly controversial speech delivered on January 5 to the immigrant population of La Courneuve, Minister of Immigration and National Identity Eric Besson uttered the above statements, which translate:
"France is not a people, or a language, or a territory, or a religion, it is a conglomerate of peoples who want to live together. There is no ethnic Frenchman, there is only an ethnically mixed France."
I reported on his statements here. He made similar statements in his debate with Marine Le Pen on January 14.
His statements, though exceptionally blunt, were in keeping with the Sarkozy doctrine of métissage, a doctrine that aims to change the face of France from that of a white European nation with a Christian foundation, and a Greek cultural heritage, into an Arabic/Islamic/African salmagundi without discernible and protective borders, and without a dominant white European culture.
Now Eric Besson has retracted, or rather revised, his statements. Here is an article from L'Express, linked by François Desouche:
In a communiqué, Minister of Immigration and National Identity Eric Besson declares that the French nation is made up of one people alone and a Republic indivisible and that he was misunderstood when he portrayed it on January 5 as a "conglomerate of peoples."
He explained on Friday (January 22) that he wanted to dissipate any misunderstanding, in view of the fact that his words resulted in his being called an "immigrationist" by the president of the Front National Jean-Marie Le Pen.
Note: There's a contradiction here. Shouldn't he be GLAD to have attracted criticism from JMLP? Why does he not just say, "Yes! I am an immigrationist! And proud of it!"
During a debate in the suburb of Seine-Saint-Denis, on national identity, a topic that has aroused lively debate in France, Eric Besson had declared that France was a "conglomerate of peoples who want to live together." On Friday he explained that "this schematic shortcut could have been wrongly interpreted as being my definition of the French nation".
The minister emphasized that during this debate he was talking about "France before it was called France, the France of the scattered tribes described by Julius Caesar in his Commentaries on the Gallic Wars."
"I had in mind the words of Mirabeau on what was not yet France (an 'aggregate of disunited peoples'). And I spoke of a 'conglomerate of peoples'", he added.
Eric Besson made a reference to his book Pour la Nation (For the Nation), in which he defends the idea of a Nation created by a strong State, where origins have been transcended, and bound together since 1539 by the French language.
The French nation is "one people alone, one language, one territory, values and institutions: the Republic", he stated with assurance.
Nice try, but it's too late.
Not only has Eric Besson made a complete volte-face, it could be argued that he very subtly did NOT really change anything of what he had said before. No where did he actually condone or praise the France that existed BEFORE the Republic. No where did he in any way say or imply that non-assimilable immigrants should not be allowed into the country. He is now saying that France is (present tense) "one people alone", but who are they? He could be talking about anybody, Celts, Burgundians, Alsatians, naturalized Poles, Swedes or Italians who emigrated into France, naturalized Maghrebins, sub-Saharan Africans, or Hottentots who emigrated to France, all of whom will meld as if by magic into one people. And of course no word about Christianity or Islam. Whatever he claims now, his original statement was about a racially mixed Republic, and his retraction is about the Republic, albeit in gentler terms.
To try to make us believe that on January 5 he was actually talking about the Gaul that Caesar conquered is laughable. Why would he talk about that to immigrants who complain bitterly about French xenophobia? Gaul consisted of groups that were not yet united into a nation called France. But they were white Europeans of Indo-European origins. They were already linked by a heritage, however vague. And how would his audience have known what he was talking about anyway? Or cared? What connection is there really between Caesar's Gaul and Sarkozy's France, in terms of racial composition, civilizational goals and internal compatibility? It was difficult enough for the French kings to consolidate the various white European groups into the Kingdom of France. It is now virtually impossible to incorporate groups hostile by virtue of culture, race and religion into the decadent Republic.
In his revised statement he speaks of common "values". What are they? Catholicism and Islam? Pedagogical rigor and socialized education? Traditional families and gay marriage?
Besson must have received a lot of angry letters and e-mails to engage in this kind of damage control.
Regarding Mirabeau, I have not had time to research his comment on an "aggregate."
Finally, what is this book called Pour la Nation? According to les Manants du Roi, it is plagiarized from an earlier work with the same title by Attorney Jean-Marc Varaut.
Yes, we are dreaming. Besson the Mediocre could not do otherwise than to enclose France in an organized institution: the Republic... What could be more normal than a book by this minister that is nothing more than a mediocre act of plagiarism cut from the book Pour la Nation by Jean-Marc Varaut. This ought to result in a law suit...
Note: I have not read either book.
Labels: Eric Besson, National Identity
posted by tiberge @ 11:05 AM
9 comments
links to this post
9 Comments:
When the French Republic pretends to force a French identity on everybody in France, it should be reminded that said identity is one that the French State has invented on the basis of its anti-christian project since the First Revolution. Since this identity has no roots in French pre-revolutionary traditions, it has no real claim to be called French, and to whoever looks into it a bit closely, it soon becomes clear that it even denies the real identity of the French, not only of those in the provinces, but of the Parisians as well. The only thing that really matters to Masons is their anti-christian project. They have tolerated that the French identify with such things as raw cheese, but this has never been more than tactical toleration. They wish nothing more than that the French identify with their project, and with their project only. Recent declarations by Sarkozy have made very clear that the only thing that he wishes us to consider as properly French is the republican value of tolerance (which is to say that the French are not allowed to have any identity of their own, since tolerance is being propagated as the official ideology not only in France, but everywhere the Masons rule, which is pretty much all of the western countries, especially in the EU).
@ Unfrench Frenchman
I have little to add. Nicolas Sarkozy has no recognition of a France that existed before the Revolution - there was even a crazy story about him scoffing at the "galette des rois" (I may have the terminology wrong) during Christmas. He has been erasing, eradicating from memory the very existence of the France before 1789. It seems to me (I may be wrong) that he is doing this with a fury and a brazenness that even his predecessors did not possess. His hirelings such as Besson, Copé, et al. are exactly like him. They have seized the moment, seized this point in time to deal the final blow to traditional France and to its religious foundation - Christianity. To do this, they had to import the one force capable of utterly destroying Christianity - Islam. The Church is not protesting, I am very sorry to say. Do you have any idea why this is so? Chrsitianity is certainly not dead. It is very strong in other parts of the world. Why has the French Catholic Church not been more militant? Why is Benedict not more militant? Are there answers to these questions? The Church is certainly not Masonic. Or is it?
Tiberge, you asked the question, "Why has the French Catholic Church not been more militant?"
It is the same question I have asked on this blog several times previously in other forms. Why do the French people not rise up, because in point of fact, the French Catholic Church is nothing more or less than the French people.
The answer that becomes increasingly evident to me as I read about France (I have never been there), is that this is a people who have rejected the Church and who have rejected their own heritage long before the muzlims came. No one has locked them out of the Chapels and Churches, but how many go to Mass? How many go to Confession? How many take their children to Confirmation classes and see that they make their First Communion? How many take their responsibilities as god parents seriously?
You said, "Why is Benedict not more militant?" Do you recall what happened when Benedict made the oblique reference to muzlim brutality by means of bringing up the conversation of a Byzantine Emperor of several hundred years ago, and this set the muzzies in a tizzy? Did all of Europe rise up and support him, or did they back away and leave him to hang out and dry?
The sad fact is simply this: No one can save anyone else. No one else can save France. No one else can save the UK. No one else can save the US, and so so forth. Everyone of us is going to have to stand on our own two feet and fight for ourselves, or we will simply die. This idea of looking to someone else to "do something," just is not going to cut it. France must act to save France. That means the ordinary man in the street, the little guy who will probably lose his job and possibly even his life; he must act. That is what it is going to take. It is that or slavery. Not a nice choice, but the five week vacations in the summer are soon coming to an end.
«La France n’est ni un peuple, ni une langue, ni un territoire, ni une religion, c’est un conglomérat de peuples qui veulent vivre ensemble.
- donc: There was no Charlemagne, no Azincourt, no French Revolution, neither Descartes, Racine, Baudelaire, etc, etc!
Il n’y a pas de Français de souche, il n’y a qu’une France de métissage»
- donc: All ancient Franks were mulatos...
Why we keep electing in Europe this kind of idiot??
The only thing that really matters to Masons is their anti-christian project.
why?
They wish nothing more than that the French identify with their project, and with their project only.
what's their project?
thanks.
eric besson should go back where he came from!
Anonymous #1: " what's their project? "
They say they have a project, but they don't have one. They just want to destroy white nations. They have no idea what their grand-children will do next. They have a theory that white nations are not based on blood, but on an idea or a set of values that have been willingly adopted. The project would consist in organizing national life along those lines. But there is no real project to build a new society, only a lot of posturing by frauds who say it can be done.
In the traditional view, our identity is real, predefined, based on blood and tradition, and people just live their lives in an natural society, without any particular project.
By contrast, our evil masters have a theory that we can choose who we want to be. They tell us we want to live together not because we share ancestry, but because we choose to do so: we just love third-world immigrants.
Of course, in the real-world, we want immigrants to go away. People of French blood who do not subscribe to Sarko's list of French values do not get kicked out of the country. In fact, Sarko has been unable to put forward a set of "republican" values or a magical idea that makes people French.
However, the idea that our identity is based on an idea is an idea in itself. So, here's what they have so far: anyone can be French if they agree with the idea that anyone can be French if they agree with the idea that [loop back to beginning of sentence].
If I was born 300 years earlier, my ideal would have been to protect my nation and repel invasions. It would have been a conservative ideal, not a project. Today, my nation is partly gone, and my ideal is a counter project: Stop immigration. Eject the invaders. Hang the traitors. —It's a real project, unlike Sarkozy's.
a picture of lefebvre lol
http://dutron.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/frederic-lefebvre-pitbull2.jpg
Anonymous #2, thanks.
there are already muslims in the mansonry and they are behind of some of the called conspiracy theories.
p.s.
anonymous #2, i agree with you:
If I was born 300 years earlier, my ideal would have been to protect my nation and repel invasions. It would have been a conservative ideal, not a project. Today, my nation is partly gone, and my ideal is a counter project: Stop immigration. Eject the invaders. Hang the traitors. —It's a real project, unlike Sarkozy's.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home