"Laïcité" - An Open Invitation to Islam?

Catholic writer Yves Daoudal, in the latest edition of his weekly newsletter Daoudal Hebdo, available through subscription, explains why, as a Catholic, he did not care to attend the "Apéro" sausage and wine party on June 18. In a word, he does not identify with "laïcité", since it is a by-product of the French Revolution that sought the destruction of the French Catholic Church.

But this does not stop him from being critical of the ban against the "Apéro", or from recognizing the dhimmitude of the Church. Here he relays to us the response to the "Apéro" by the church of Saint Bernard de la Chapelle, located in the Goutte d'Or neighborhood of Paris, where the Muslim prayers have taken over the streets on Friday afternoons:

"As Christians, we dispute the notion that the neighborhood is in the throes of a more or less rampant Islamization. The members of the Saint Bernard de la Chapelle parish can attest that they experience no difficulty living their Christian faith.

The presence of a large Muslim community is not a source of tension, but of mutual enrichment and openness to others. Gestures of mutual friendship, especially during religious holidays, are frequent.

We do acknowledge, however, the long-standing problems Muslims have had in living their faith in a dignified manner in the neighborhood, and we regret that they are often forced to pray in the street.

We are not unaware of the problems some members of our parish face in their daily lives in the Goutte d'Or, but we refuse to attribute them to any particular religion or to any particular community."

Daoudal comments:

You might think this is a communiqué from Christians living in a Muslim country and forced to take such a position to avoid persecution. They are not (yet) obligated to do this. But they have already assimilated the reflexes of dhimmitude, and they do not hesitate to bring up again the tall tale about Muslims "forced" to pray in the street.

Note: The photographer from Riposte Laïque who has been taking the photos of the prayers has noted that the Muslims come from other neighborhoods, and often from the suburbs of Paris. He has seen numerous cars with license plates from other departments. Moreover, there are many mosques in Paris, and many of them are partially empty. The prayers in the street are a deliberate and organized effort to show the French people who is boss, not the result of a lack of places of worship.

Daoudal goes on:

There was also the communiqué from the "inhabitants" of the neighborhood. It begins by firmly denouncing the "Apéro" initiative and its "provocative nature", as being an action that aims to "exploit, and even capitalize on - to the benefit of the racist Right - the very real discontent of many citizens exasperated by the laxness of the authorities toward this ostensible occupation of public space" (by Muslims). The rest of the communiqué is a list of complaints:

"Our neighborhood has truly been abandoned by our politicians. We are still waiting for an end to the informal trade that proliferates dangerously on the sidewalks of rues Poulet, Dejean, des Poissonniers, and Doudeauville preventing all pedestrian traffic and all normal development of businesses. We are still waiting for the managers of the mosques to be told they must limit the encroachment of their religion on public space. We are still waiting for an end of the reign of caids and of criminals in certain places in the neighborhood, etc..."

They then speak of "prostitution, crime, and drugs..."

In conclusion, "this provocation by the extreme Right regarding our neighborhood seems to us to be an opportunity to reset the clock."

Note: By "reset the clock" they mean to "set things right", to explain clearly their position.

Here we perceive a rather troubling schizophrenia. They complain about the occupation of public space by Muslims, but it's a provocation to demonstrate against this occupation. They count on public officials, who do nothing. They reset the clock, but only verbally, because they don't know the right hour. They denounce the extreme Right, when, in fact, it is a certain extreme Left that is actively involved in the "Apéro" initiative...

Note: This communiqué, perhaps better than anything else, summarizes the schizophrenia of the entire Western world. They want the evil to go away, but they regard with horror those who would make the evil go away! It is really a "High Noon" situation.

If the French are to take back their country, they will have to overcome this paralyzing dread of looking like an "extreme right-winger".
.................................................................................................................
Note: At this point my post shifts gears slightly and emphasizes the problems posed by "laïcité".

As I explained in my post on the "Apéro", the internal divisions within the large bloc of those who oppose Islamization, immigration, métissage, etc... constitute an insurmountable obstacle to a unified front seeking the eventual restoration of sanity in France. Unless a common ground can be agreed upon by all, EITHER the Catholics of France will have to accept the "laïcistes" (i.e., the leftist, pro-laïcité militants) as the leaders of the revolution to come, OR the "laïcistes" will have to accept leadership from a reinvigorated and fortified Catholic France that crusades to save its national and religious identities. In other words, either the traditionalist Catholics will get the upper hand or the anti-religion Left will get the upper hand. This is why both sides have to give a little, but that is much easier said than done. Today I posted a comment from a reader that addresses this dilemma. He (or she) starts with my statement about the fears that are paralyzing France - the understandable unwillingness of Catholics and those sympathetic to Catholicism to join the Left, and the much less understandable dread of the Left of looking like an "extreme right-winger".

"This type of confusion is paralyzing the French and preventing action."

Exactly. It is extremely frustrating. A strong leader is needed, like Vercingétorix or Charlemagne, but perhaps a woman would be better in this day and age. Jehanne had to be chosen because men were not wearing their hats. Also, when I listened to Sylvie on the radio, she handled herself so well, was polite and courteous, and defended her position well. I think this is needed in this media age for winning hearts and minds. Ugly expressions and winks at holocaust denyers only turn off the general electorate, which the FN cannot seem to understand.

On her facebook page, Sylvie or whatever her name is, lists RL as a main interest, so I assume she shares their viewpoint. If France is to be saved from Islamicization and immigration, it may have to be done by a secular "republican" political leader today, even though I would prefer a Catholic and Royalist. But there is a certain sense in invoking the law of 1905 (which I personally think is responsible for a lot of our troubles, as is the creation of a Republic), in order to stop the Republic's subsidies and special treatment of Islam in France.

My reader is of course assuming that the 1905 law establishing "laïcité" (or separation of Church and State) still has some meaning. The "laïcistes" also believe passionately that the law has meaning. I have said elsewhere that the law is not worth the paper it's written on. But that does not mean that it cannot be somehow reactivated, maybe re-written in stronger language to EXCLUDE Islam as a religion capable of being integrated into French society. Emphasis would have to be placed on the fact that Islam is not just a religion but a political ideology and as such represents a threat to the French State. Catholicism would have to be recognized as the founding religion of France, and as one of the primary sources of French civilization. "Laïcité" simply determines the lines that cannot be crossed by Catholics or by "laïcistes", but must in no way condone freedom FROM religion, and in no way prevent Catholics from observing and practicing their faith freely, and in no way have as its central tenet Marxism, radical feminism, or radical anything.

(Also, I remind my reader that Jehanne was completely devout. This may have been why she was able to prevail. The cowards surrounding her did not have her faith, but were eventually inspired by her to fight. Can an anti-religion Jehanne of today accomplish a similar feat?)

Ironically, the Republic that passed the 1905 law, is now being called upon to save that law from its republican abusers, and those trying to save it, though of the Left, are being labeled as "extreme right-wingers". A second irony is that the Catholic Church which should be fighting the Islamization of France, is instead acquiescing to it, possibly out of hatred of laïcité, leaving the job of fighting to the "laïcistes"!

So how can we expect the "laïcistes" to accept a strong Catholic Church, when the Church has shown no sign of strength in this crisis? How can we expect a Church led by so many weak bishops, enthralled (so it seems) by the Islamic presence, to suddenly rise to the occasion and kick the invaders out of France?

Where will this Catch-22 lead? The worst that can happen would be that the Church of France is destroyed, and the Republic finally triumphs completely, in which case there would no longer be a need for a law separating Church and State, for there would be no Church. Nor would there be a State worth living in. Catholics would then have to secede, and form a separate French Catholic State of their own, also much easier said than done. (There has been talk at various American websites of secession as the only solution to the insurmountable problems created by the chasm between the defenders of Western civilization, and those that seek its ruination.)

This is why some kind of consensus between the Catholics and the "laïcistes" is needed.

As I write this, I see that in a new post Yves Daoudal has quoted from a longer article at Agoravox. Here are excerpts from that article by J. Scipilliti that confirm what I have often thought: there is no "laïcité", because for all intents and purposes there is no Church (which is NOT tantamount to saying that there are no Christians. There are certainly believers - we saw them come out in huge numbers when Benedict XVI visited France. But there is no discernible Church movement against Islamization or immigration. Quite the contrary.)

(...) It is time for the politicians to finally take off their masks. French "laïcité" is a lot of hot air. An anti-Christian wind. And it has been thus since the beginning, that is, since 1789. Christianity (and in France this means essentially Catholicism) was the belief system of the aristocracy. The bourgeoisie that brought about the Revolution was not content to proclaim the triumph of Reason over religious obscurantism. It persecuted priests as supporters of the dominant class. In the next century, it was the proletariat that fought Catholicism, which had, in the meantime, become the religion of the exploiting bourgeoisie. Just as the liberal petty nobility had rallied to the Revolution, a fraction of the petty bourgeoisie joined the proletariats in the struggle. They were represented politically by the Radical-Socialist Party, a pillar of the Third Republic that voted in the law of 1905 separating Church from State.

Never was there a more anti-clerical party than the Radicals, with their verbal violence and their intolerance that would be unimaginable today. The Free Masons were a large part of it, and the Grand Orient inspired many of their positions, starting with "laïcité".

And yet... On July 16, 1926, the Great Mosque of Paris, the first mosque to open in France, was inaugurated. By whom? I'll give you three guesses: Gaston Doumergue, president of the Radical-Socialist Republic and a member of the Grand Orient of France. This destroyer of priests, who would have choked from indignation if he had been asked to inaugurate a church, saw no reason why he should not represent the secular Republic at the opening of the first Muslim place of worship, where he gave a speech unencumbered by guilt feelings.

The Left showed for the first time its true conception of "laïcité": the enemy is not religion, but Catholicism - the religion of the dominant, arrogant and exploitative world. Whereas Islam, the religion of the colonized, of the poor countries, of immigrants, does not merit the same treatment. (...)

The author then moves on to the current situation:

Left and Right fight to get Muslim votes, all the while swearing, hand on heart, that they are "laïques". And as the Church of France dies, as churches are no longer maintained for want of funding, as the clergy disappears (average age: 70), the conquering Islam of France, fed by on-going immigration, sustained by the political class, builds its mosques and gradually introduces its rites into French daily life. Whether one is happy about this, or sorry, is not the problem here. Just don't speak to me any more about "laïcité".

Note: There is a long dissenting comment from one of Yves Daoudal's readers regarding the article quoted above. He feels it does not come close to the truth of the situation. He seems to feel that the article is a fatalistic surrender to the "laïcistes", that it leads to a feeling of hopelessness, that its purpose ultimately is to make the "laïcistes" gloat with satisfaction, and that the only truth is that which is told by the Church. He links to the doctrine (1965) of the Catholic Church on religious freedom, Dignitatus Humanae.

I do not entirely understand his point of view, and do not have time to research it. To me, no matter how deeply religious you are, you still need and want a country, a homeland where you can live your faith. If the churches are in disrepair, the Catholic schools in financial straits, the clergy weak and afraid to defy the Muslims; if no one, or very few, take the side of the Catholics, if their point of view is banned from the airwaves, or subject to ridicule, etc... then no matter what the Church doctrines are, the Catholics of France are abandoned by their elected leaders and by their bishops. They can rally, they can mobilize, but will they? The Church doctrine on religious freedom is certainly more uplifting than the article above, but like any doctrine, to be useful it has to be read, understood, and internalized by the believer, who then has to throw himself into the struggle without concern for his own personal safety, but motivated only by a higher good. Does anyone see anything like this happening?

Those French readers who are interested should read his comment. Let me know what your thoughts are.

The image is of Pope Urban II before the Council of Clermont. Note the anachronism of Gothic architecture in this illumination. See Wikipedia.



Here is part of one version of Pope Urban II's speech in Clermont, France, in 1095, as he urged Western Christians to fight the Muslims, who had occupied the Holy Land and were attacking the Eastern Roman Empire:

Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends.

Clearly, Pope Urban knew his priorities...

The Disqualified and the Unqualified

Though much of the recent news has been focusing on the conduct of the "French" soccer team, the defeat yesterday of the Algerian team by the United States triggered an eruption of violence in Paris, particularly near the Cité Universitaire, a complex of student residences on the southern border of Paris.

A late goal by Landon Donovan of the U.S. resulted in the elimination of Algeria as a contender for the Cup. Several news sources carried reports of the acts of violence. From 20 minutes:

There were incidents on Wednesday in and around the Charléty stadium in Paris, where the soccer match was being broadcast live, according to police sources. After the defeat by the United States (0-1), the manager of a garage located near the stadium told 20 Minutes: "It was an apocalypse: several thousand persons marched in front of my establishment. The police charged. I had to make women and children go inside. Twenty young persons stole tires, broke car windows; at least four cars were burnt in the street,'' he went on. "A car belonging to one of my customers is no longer usable - they turned it upside down," he says, in a state of shock.


The police confirm that cars were turned upside down and windows broken. There were also incidents as people exiting the stadium were being monitored. "Some were not happy to be forced to wait," noted one police source.

Europe 1 adds this:

In addition, incidents erupted on Line B of the Regional Rails, resulting in interrupted service at the Denfert-Rochereau station. According to one Europe 1 reporter, one car and one motor-bike were burnt, another car was overturned, and the windows of a jewelry store were broken.

Le Parisien:

(...) About 200-250 young people set off the violence, attacking buses and police with various projectiles, according to one police officer who called the incidents "short but serious". Other sources said two people had been arrested. On rue Cacheux, along the side of the stadium a Twingo and three scooters were burnt, and on Boulevard Kellermann a Citroën Picasso was turned upside down, and the windows of the bus stop and a garage had been smashed in. Police used tear gas and tried to encircle the perpetrators, while a quiet crowd of fans was held in check by a police barrier.

The police spoke of a "tense" climate after the game.

(...) On the Champs-Elysées, about a hundred very young fans with Algerian flags, wearing green and red shirts, paraded by calmly, dancing to a tambourine. At least three companies of riot police had been deployed, declared a reporter for AFP.

H/T: François Desouche

As for the conduct of the French team (known as "les Bleus"), by now everyone knows what Nicolas Anelka said to coach Domenech, and the consequences. Here is a short summary from an English-language source. Insults back and forth, a "hunt" for the "traitor" who reported Anelka's remarks, etc... A general lack of interest in the game due to internal quarrels, ethnic, racial and religious rivalries. Then the inevitable: a loss to South Africa on June 22 eliminated "les Bleus" from the competition. Did they try to lose this game, so that South Africa would win? Some French bloggers believe so. Here are some short excerpts from a local paper Sud-Ouest, on the disaster in South Africa.

Note: For some the French loss is not a disaster, but a wake-up call for those who believed in the joys of multiculturalism. The French defeat proves that a team must be composed of players who identify with the country they are playing for, not with their own ethnic or racial group, and that the choices made by coach Domenech were dictated purely by racial politics, not by concern for the French nation:

Shame and disaster for "les Bleus"; the French team, reduced to ten, left the World Cup, beaten 2-1 for nothing, by a South Africa that became the first host country to be eliminated during the first stage of a World Cup.

As in 2008, "les Bleus" leave the World Cup during the first stage without a victory. What connects these two shipwrecks? Raymond Domenech, who returned to his post after the 2008 debacle. These two failures are his. He departs leaving behind a field of ruins.

The French Federation is also on the bench of the accused and will have to face a country disgusted by its national team. The government has promised a change in the leadership of this institution. A page will be turned, probably amidst chaos. The players will have to taste opprobrium. After the "golden generation" of 1998 and 2000, they will remain the "spoiled generation", the generation of half-crazed individualists, who insult their coach and sully their image permanently by refusing to train, without realizing that they are the laughing stock of the world. (...)

François Desouche has posted the video of writer/philosopher Alain Finkielkraut denouncing the conduct of "les Bleus". The video is also available at Daily Motion.


Among other things, Finkielkraut says:

"You feel like vomiting with this generation of scum ("génération caillera")... It is time to stop selecting arrogant, unintelligent thugs... you have to take into consideration the ethnic and religious divisions that are undermining this team."

Note: Finkielkraut uses the term "caillera", a reversal of "racaille" (scum). "Racaille" was famously used by Nicolas Sarkozy when, as Interior Minister, he promised to rid the ghettoes of the "racaille". The word has become widely accepted by writers and websites as the preferred way of designating the ghetto dwellers who commit acts of violence and disruption. To reverse syllables is common in the street slang called "verlan", which is itself a reversal of "langue verte" (green language). We might say "salty" or "racy" language, or just "slang".

Finkielkraut's remarks are refreshingly honest, and on the whole, the readers at François Desouche praise him. However, other websites express less enthusiasm, because the philosopher, for all his criticism, exonerates the government, and places the blame for the poor image of the team solely on the team itself, without considering how this all came about in the first place. Was Domenech under pressure from Elysée to pick certain players and not others? I don't have the answer, but here are some of his remarks subjected to analysis by Agoravox:

- AF: "Let us require dignity of our elected officials, but they are not the ones setting a bad example." (This remark followed the observation by AF that there were "caïds" within the French team.)

- Agoravox: The imbecile looks at the finger when the wise man points to the moon. As far as a bratty child and an attitude of a caïd are concerned, the President of the French Republic is a fine example. First, his demeanor. The "parvenu" side of his character, that of a nouveau riche showing off his wife and his Rollex, and the frivolity of demanding an airplane worthy of his ego.

- AF: "It is time to stop turning the fate of the team over to arrogant unintelligent thugs and to select gentlemen."

- Agoravox: As far as good manners go, the government has a long way to go. Instead of serving the Republic, many have chosen, like their leader and mentor, to carve out large portions for themselves.

- AF: "Those who exercise power have their faults but let's not make of them the scapegoats for social turpitude."

- Agoravox: (...) courageous Finkielkraut capable of condemning a lack of responsibility and at the same time of exonerating the government for the collective collapse of values that hold society together.

Note: I take it that the word "courageous" is used here ironically in place of "cowardly", because that is what Finkielkraut shows himself to be in this particular instance. Possibly, like Philippe de Villiers, he has maintained some kind of friendly relation with Sarkozy.

Agoravox goes on:

A strange era we live in, Mr. Philosopher, when we feel clearly that we have reached a tipping point. In another period just as uncertain - 1848 - Alexis de Toqueville, before the Chamber of Deputies, uttered words that resonate still today: "It is possible that disorder is not in the facts, but it has certainly entered deeply into the minds."

After discussing briefly the role of the French Minister of Sports, Agoravox closes with this comment about Sarkozy's trip to London on June 18:

The images and the references are sometimes terrible. His attempt to exploit the June 18 patriotic actions of Charles de Gaulle attest to the fact that by the yardstick of history, it is difficult for a midget to put his steps in those of a giant.

Le Figaro has some photos, in the form of a slide show, of the visit of Sarkozy and his wife to London. I do not believe I have ever seen Carla Bruni show off the way she does in these photos. Usually she pretends to be proper, but here her affected model's pose is both unnatural and offensive, considering what is being commemorated. Yes, she is pretty, her legs are gorgeous, her dress is chic, etc... but she hogs the spotlight unduly, and ultimately looks silly.



Many of the comments from Le Figaro readers express surprise at the way she is preening. And many readers note too that it is shameful for Sarkozy to assume he can pay homage to de Gaulle, a man whose work he has undone bit by bit, every day since taking office.


Returning for a moment to soccer, the French team includes Franck Ribéry, born a Catholic, but converted to Islam in 2006. His Muslim name is Bilal Yusuf Mohammed. He is married to Wahiba (left, with her husband), a Muslim woman and is the father of Hiziya and Shahinez. In April of 2010, he and other members of the French team were implicated in a prostitution ring that was operating inside a Paris nightclub with some of the women being underage. Ribéry admitted to an affair with a prostitute, but said he did not know she was a minor. It is not known if Ribéry will be charged.

Reminiscent of the Roman Polanski case.

Source: Wikipedia

More Photos of June 18

I'm sorry I did not see the tremendous photo coverage of the rally on June 18 posted at Bivouac-Id. Here are a few of them. Click the link for many more. The comments are quite lively. I'll try to get back to the computer later tonight. I have to go out now.

The images are those of a group of people joyously celebrating a common cause. I hate to tell them, though, that when push really comes to shove, it will not be joyous, and they will have to brandish weapons a lot more powerful than a sausage.

Chinese Protest, French Soccer Disgrace, Cars Burnt, Stabbings, Fires, Facebook Picnics Banned... Just a Normal Weekend in France

As usual, there is more news tumbling "off the presses" than I can absorb, let alone condense, translate, and pass on to others in a readable form. I hope everyone has some other sources. This has been another wild weekend in France. Many acts of urban violence - car burnings, confrontations with the police, stabbings, fires, etc... Not to mention the reactions to two soccer losses - France lost to Mexico on Thursday, and Algeria and England tied at 0-0 on Friday, which is tantamount to a loss for Algeria.

The "French" soccer team could not care less about the loss: they didn't want to win, it appears, because they hate France so much they take pleasure in disgracing the team. The coach, Raymond Domenech, is responsible for putting together this team, and he is reaping what he sowed. A French team should be French, that's all. A key player of the French team Nicolas Anelka grossly insulted Domenech at half-time during the game with Mexico and was kicked off the team. His words have been printed in papers all over France: "Go f... yourself, filthy son of a ...!" Soccer has become a weapon in the on-going racial war in France. The game is nothing more than an opportunity for non-French Frenchmen who hate France to show their hatred.

French writer Alain Finkielkraut has called the French soccer team a gang of thugs.

In the Goutte-d'Or section of Paris where the Apéro was to be held, six cars were burned, four others damaged by fire. Hundreds of people gathered at the subway stop Barbès-Rochechouart after the soccer match between Algeria and England.

There were many repercussions from the sausage and wine Apéro on Friday June 18, and countless articles at Riposte Laïque and elsewhere. According to RL, there is now a ban on ALL sausage and wine picnics organized on Facebook, throughout ALL of France, as of June 19, 2010. But according to Le Parisien, it applies only to Paris:

If a picnic for more than 30 persons is organized, special authorization will be needed.

I have to research this topic, and will try to report ASAP.

I cannot convey all the news, but here is the lead article at François Desouche tonight (Sunday):

The Chinese residents of Paris demonstrated on Sunday against acts of violence by Arabs. There was a huge turnout - 8500 people according to the police, (over 10,000 according to Novopress), in the neighborhood of Belleville, in East Paris, the largest demonstration by Asians ever organized in France. The organizers of the demonstration spoke of a "growing climate of insecurity". Included among the demonstrators was the adopted daughter of Jacques Chirac - Anh, Dao Traxel of Vietnamese origin. There are an estimated 600,000 - 700,000 Asian residents in France, most of them in Paris and its suburbs.

However, the rally turned violent when, according to one demonstrator:

"Someone stole a Chinese lady's purse. The Chinese caught him, and alerted the police, who let him go. We are not violent, but it was too much."

At 7:30 p.m. young Chinese were still throwing glass bottles at the mobile gendarmes, lined up with their shields, who threw tear gas in turn. Earlier, the gendarmes had been targets of the demonstrators, some of whom threw tables and chairs taken from the La Vielleuse Bar.

Another report adds these details:

"Stop the violence, We want to live in security. We've had enough of these attacks. Respect for all." These words were written on tee-shirts, caps, and banners.

"There are too many people attacked by Arabs. They grab purses, they break shop windows, we no longer feel safe," cried out a young demonstrator as gongs and drums sounded.

According to Philippe Costa, president of the France-China Club, elected officials have demonstrated their inability to deal with crime in this multicultural neighborhood. "Many people won't come into Belleville from fear of attacks. Those who live there and work there are easy targets, because a lot of money circulates. We are asking for surveillance cameras. We do not want any more thugs in Belleville."

A spokesman for the Chinese associations says that the Chinese community can no longer keep silent. "It is not usual for Asians to demonstrate, but this has been going on for 20 years. Everybody passes the buck. This is a neighborhood that borders on four arrondissements."

Note: Paris seems to be dividing up, fragmenting into livable and non livable areas, with the livable areas slowly but surely giving way.

Sources:

20 Minutes

Rue 89

RFI

Riposte Laïque

Le Parisien

Le Parisien

Click here for a slide show of scenes from the Asian demonstration.

French readers may be interested in the arguments at this Chinese forum, where a Chinese girl described the constant danger for Asians who live or work in Belleville from attacks by Arabs and blacks. Her racial explicitness provoked accusations of racism from other participants. Her initial comment has now been modified by the web administrators, and racial references removed.

Here is how her cleaned-up comments begin now:

The Chinese can no longer live in France. they are burgled, robbed, stripped, as soon as they go out. They cannot even eat in restaurants in the evening without coming upon these thieves who take their money. They cannot live in peace. These acts are not only inhuman but racist as well since the Chinese are the main victims, but are unfortunately too discreet to speak up...

I'm sorry now I didn't download the original comment. However, French readers will have a good idea of what she said by reading through the other comments.

From Wine to Grape Juice

The organizers of the Apéro decided to obey the courts and to move their party from the Barbès quarter to the Arc de Triomphe, at 7:00 p.m. (so it's over as I write this). They have also agreed to dispense with the wine and drink grape juice instead. Shucks. Without wine it's no fun, but the Facebook group has now grown to over 10,000 members, showing at least that resistance is growing.

The amount of material on this is impossible for one person to handle. I believe that many of you are getting information from other sites, which is good. Here is the best I can do for now. Since the information is posted at multiple websites, to make it easier for me, I will concentrate on one or two:

From Le Salon Beige comes this rundown of political reactions to the Apéro, from leaders of various right-wing (or supposed right-wing) groups:

- Philippe de Villiers: "I do not approve of these initiatives and the members of the MPF who are inclined to participate will be immediately excluded. None of this is serious."

- Nicolas Dupont-Aignan: "I am hostile to the Apéro as I am to prayers in the street. The Apéro is oil thrown onto the fire of prayers in the streets. Any member of DLR who participates in the demonstration will be excluded from the movement."

Note: The above comments are quite amazing. Both men have in the past attempted to distinguish themselves from the mainstream political parties. Both have voiced concern over the loss of sovereignty, loss of nationhood, loss of national pride, loss of family values, both have opposed massive immigration, etc... Both founded parties of their own. Neither one had great success, and Philippe de Villiers, amidst a great deal of publicity and commentary, returned to Sarkozy's camp, whence (they say) he originally came. But to EXCLUDE members for merely participating in this rally is not only surprising, I find it bizarre. What do they care what their members do, especially since it is out of patriotism and opposition to the Islamization of France that they are doing it? One suggestion from a reader of LSB is that both men have been promised jobs in the Sarkozy administration. But this is speculation for now.

They threw the ball to Marine Le Pen who knew what to do with it:

- Marine Le Pen: "In response to the troubling statements issued by 'patriots' Philippe de Villiers and Nicolas Dupont-Aignan threatening any of their followers with expulsion if they go to the Apéro, Marine Le Pen would like these Frenchmen attached to France and to the Republic to know that they are welcome in the Front National."

- Bruno Gollnisch (Vice-President of the FN): "'To vanquish the Catholic omnipresence on French territory' is quite obviously one objective of Riposte Laïque (...) Nonetheless, this affair has one great merit - it brings to light once again the fracture lines within the nebulous anti-national pro-laïcité movement, but also more broadly within the parties of the Establishment, on the essential question of the development of Islamic communitarianism. Here is a phenomenon that will impel many Frenchmen to make wrenching political revisions, but one that also demonstrates that the members of the Front National, be they Christian, agnostic or atheist, are still the most lucid on these matters.

Note: Gollnisch's comments are loaded. They demand further explanation. See note at the end.

- The MNR: "Despite the desire on the part of the organizers of the Apéro not to turn this into a political demonstration, the MNR sincerely supports this initiative that is both friendly and symbolic."

Note: A reminder that the MNR was formed in 1998 by Bruno Mégret who broke from the Front National due to problems with Jean-Marie Le Pen. He would not be the last leading figure of the FN to leave the party in frustration over the tactics of the party chairman.

- The PdF of Carl Lang: "By banning the Apéro in the
Goutte d'Or neighborhood, the prefect of Paris imposes the Islamic right of occupation. This ban is an anti-French discriminatory and oppressive act by the administration that violates the freedoms and rights of Parisians."

Note: Another reminder that Carl Lang also broke with the FN to form his own group, the Parti de la France.

Note: Regarding the comments by Bruno Gollnisch. He has brought up the major bone of contention between some French Catholics and the group known as Riposte Laïque that spearheaded the Apéro movement, namely, that RL, being fanatically pro-laïcité is seeking the eradication of Catholicism from French soil. In other words, RL is finishing the job begun by the most violent revolutionaries in 1789. However, the Islamization of the country has forced some members of RL to reconsider their whole position. They have perceived that even though they hate Catholicism, and mock the Pope with impunity, there is a much worse enemy - Islam - that has to be dealt with. This in turn has forced them to acknowledge, as one of their editors recently did, that there are only two camps: those that want to save France and those that want to destroy her. In the latter are the parties and ideologies of the LEFT as well as the Establishment Right, i.e., the UMP of Sarkozy.

RL is admittedly left-wing, feminist, and socialist. To renounce the LEFT for its pro-Islamic positions is indeed a wrenching decision for them. They have to cease being anti-racist, and start being concerned about the preservation of a nation - their own. But the biggest ordeal lies ahead: RL is going to have to admit that without Catholicism, without a Christian moral code, without religious freedom for Christians, there can never be a restored France. They are going to have to adopt a saner and more authentic view of laïcité itself, which they have deformed into a type of neo-Stalinist ideology, based largely on the sexual freedom of women. Laïcité simply means the separation of Church and State. It cannot mean freedom FROM religion. It cannot allow for Islam which is a subversive political ideology, bent on ruling the entire world. Christianity is by nature in tune with laïcité: 'Render under Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.'"

More wrenching decisions lie ahead. I do not agree with Gollnisch's rosy view of the Front National. If numerous defections, losses in elections, and general mistrust of Le Pen's motives and values were not enough to destroy the party, it was only because the other options were too weak. The French people never recognized the splinter parties as offering an alternative (if indeed they even knew these parties existed), but now with Marine Le Pen running the party, we can only hope that the Front National will be seen as the party of traditional France and traditional Christian values. It will mean wrenching decisions for Marine Le Pen as she attempts to turn the party into a worthy and indispensable, but not politically correct, entity; as she strives to espouse the original reason for the party's existence: to be the party of France, and to prevent the 'Arabisation of France', as Jean-Pierre Stirbois, one of the early leaders of the Front National, said, before his untimely death in an automobile accident. She will have to decide just how far into centralized politics, just how far into regionalism, how far into protectionism, how far into free-market policies she can lead the nation, should she ever be called upon to do so. She will have to rid French soil of Islam, rebuild Christian values throughout the population, even among those who claim to be "agnostic", and redefine laïcité so that it becomes what it was meant to be - a line of demarcation, not an ideology in itself. In short, she will have to totally re-educate the people, and wean them off of the toxic ideas they have been fed over many decades. Can she do this? Of course not. Nobody can. But somehow it will have to be done through the evolution of mind-sets and the unfolding of events themselves.

Everybody is going to have to swallow some bitter pills. It seems unlikely this will happen, but life is very unpredictable.

Now, back to today's events.

Below, a video showing a few scenes from the rally, which, according to the police attracted 800 people - a fairly decent turnout. The video was posted by a gay rights advocate, who exclaims: "How shameful that we French are racist to such a degree!"



Below, another video of today's rally, this one posted by someone called Mr. Goodnightwhitepride, but who misspells his own name on the video. He says at the beginning that there were only 300 people there, despite the 10,000 members of the Facebook group, but the police reported 800. The figure of 10,000 refers to people from all over France and the world, not just Parisians.



Below, my favorite video of the three.

On November 11, 1940, there was another rally at Place de l'Etoile, under the Arc de Triomphe, this one took place despite a ban from both the German occupiers and the police. Several thousand courageous high-school students, protesting the Occupation, converged at the site and were brutally repressed. There were many wounded, and about a hundred students were arrested and jailed. The date of November 11, 1940 came to symbolize Parisian resistance. In the following video, a wonderful "old-timer", a man in many ways younger than today's leaders of France, tells of how he and some friends went to the rally, after school, how they took the subway, but got off before the stop to avoid detection, how filled with people the area was, and how on the rooftops one could see the machine guns pointed at the crowd. You will see true Frenchmen carrying wreaths and honoring those who died for France. A wonderful video, even if you don't know French.



French readers will find a wealth of material at François Desouche - assuming you can load the homepage. There are over 6000 comments.

The Great Apéro Debate

Today the Paris Prefecture banned the Apéro Saucisson-Pinard, scheduled for June 18 at la Goutte d'Or in the 18th arrondissement of Paris. June 18 is also the anniversary of Charles de Gaulle's call for French resistance to the Nazi invaders and to the Pétain government.

If you are confused, it is because I have given you the latest news without first telling you what it is about.

Back on May 21 Novopress, among many other sites, began talking about a giant "Apéro" organized by one Sylvie François, to be held in the Muslim-held territory of the 18th arrondissement of Paris on Friday June 18 at 7:00 p.m. This is the neighborhood where, on Friday afternoons, you can see streets filled with Muslims bent over in prayer, traffic being controlled by Muslim "police", and French citizens forced to find other ways to get around, since the streets and pavements belong to the non-French, i.e., the new rulers of France. What is an "apéro"? It's a little bit like our happy hour (the word derives from "apéritif"- the pre-dinner drink I used to enjoy so much in France), except that this one centers on the enjoyment of drinking Pinard wine with the delicious "saucisson" or salami that the French make so well, and often take along with them on picnics. Some French bread, a few slices of ''saucisson", lots of good wine and you have a feast.

Except that the territory is in Muslim hands and Islam forbids alcohol and pork meat, one of the major ingredients in the "saucisson".

And so, the prefect has banned the party. But when word got out, via Facebook, about the event, the news spread like wildfire and soon thousands had joined the Facebook group, and a very big crowd is expected despite the ban, since the organizers have no intention of backing down. They have just filed an appeal.

One unusual aspect is that the ban was not issued to the organizers of the Apéro, but to the press! As if the judge was informing the press of a conviction before the defendant himself was informed.

Source: Novopress

But there is more, much more. Videos, debates, articles galore, and news that other cities in Europe are following suit: a Bacon and Beer Apéro in London and a Beer and Saucisson Apéro in Brussels, according to Novopress.

Apéros are not uncommon in France. But often they are nothing more than the typical binge-drinking beer fests we see here on college campuses and in restaurants and cafés in the evenings, weekends and holidays. Sometimes the apéro turns violent but it is not banned by the police. In the current case, if it is being banned, it is because this apéro has a political and patriotic purpose - to bring together those Frenchmen who refuse the Islamization of France, who reject the notion that to be patriotic is to be a "racist", and who cherish their national identity, of which the wine and "saucisson" are symbols.

This communiqué, signed Yann Baly, from Chrétienté-Solidarité, an organization founded by Bernard Antony to promote and protect Christianity and the rights of Christians, was posted at Yves Daoudal's blog:

We have just learned, as was foreseeable, that the authorities of the formerly "laïque" French Republic, have decided to ban the Apéro scheduled for this Friday in the neighborhood known as la Goutte d'Or.

The prefect cites as reasons for the ban: "the place, the day, and the time of day."

There is, then, in France, a place (a heavily Islamized area), a day (Friday), the day of the great Muslim prayer, and an hour (the hour of the soccer match between England and Algeria), when for these reasons, we cannot eat saucisson or drink wine!

As we predicted, the Republic has just officially recognized a Muslim enclave in France, where sharia law is applied to the detriment of French traditions.

The French people should know this and note it well.

Note: The soccer match on Friday is expected to have major repercussions in France, no matter who wins.

Here is an amazing video, 1'22" long, that hauntingly illustrates the transformation of "Barbès" in the 18th arrondissement, from a flourishing working class neighborhood, consisting entirely of ethnic French, to a slum not only inhabited by foreigners, but ruled by them. Rue Myrha, Rue Léon, Boulevard Barbès have all been the subject of photo essays by the website Riposte Laïque, whose photographer Maxime Lépante shot scenes of the Friday prayers and the manner in which the streets no longer belonged to the Parisians. These photos, some of which I published at Galliawatch (click label Barbès below) also spread like wildfire throughout the web, and to foreign websites as well, illustrating the degree to which Paris is occupied by the enemy and the interest such images aroused around the world.



Here is one more video - 6 minutes long - showing the total occupation by Muslims at prayer of the rue des Poissoniers in Barbès. This street, along with several others, is entirely in Muslim hands on Friday afternoons, and one can assume other days as well, even if there are no prayer meetings. Occupation is not just a matter of praying in the street, but of being there in great numbers.



Note: I have not taken the time to translate these videos which, I think, speak for themselves.

There is much information at both Facebook (where the original invitation from Sylvie François appeared) and Twitter, but I am not registered at those sites. My attempt to register at Facebook failed, possibly because of inadequate software. I assume most readers can register - look for "Apéro Saucisson et Pinard".

Several anti-racism organizations such as SOS Racism have protested against the Apéro. The head of SOS Racism, Dominique Sopo, and Sylvie François have already faced off in a debate that is on video.

Finally there is much more to be said about Riposte Laïque and Sylvie François who writes for RL, but it will have to wait.

America's Mission in France - Sequel

This article appeared on D-Day in Le Monde. It was also posted at Bivouac-Id. I have had to condense it. This is not the first time the French press has written about the interest shown by the American government in the suburbs and ghettos of France, in particular Seine-Saint-Denis (see my previous post from 2008). What seems to be happening is a type of "head-hunting" with a strong affirmative action basis, i.e., the Americans are recruiting the "best and the brightest" of French Muslim ghetto dwellers in order to groom them for high-ranking positions, theoretically in France, but also in the U.S.

The inauguration of a giant mural in Villiers-le-Bel. A trip to La Courneuve to meet the young people. An encounter in Bondy with a Hollywood star. The American ambassador to France, Charles Rivkin (photo), has been redoubling his efforts for the past year in the troubled ghettos, but these symbolic and media-oriented operations mask the real scope of a network put in place to identify the elite from the ethnic minority neighborhoods of France.

Note: "Elite" refers to the leaders, the most influential, the brightest.

The American embassy has, in fact, put together the most complete and up-to-date list of names available today on the French suburbs. So complete that even the political parties, the associations, the universities and the media cannot hold a candle to the American embassy's network.

Thus, dozens of group leaders, educators, locally elected officials both on the Right and the Left, artists, young researchers, have been identified as the future elite of French society. "It's fascinating. Every time I meet someone brilliant, he has already been in contact with the embassy," says Ahmed El-Kely, 43, a talk show host on France Ô and one who knows best the ins and outs of diversity.

Note: Why would we want to know who the future leaders of France will be? And why would we want these future leaders to be Muslim, instead of French? The answer must be that we are anticipating the future demise of white European civilization and its replacement by a non-European, non-Christian society.

The most promising young people are offered two or three-week stays in the United States to gain a deeper knowledge of the subjects of interest to them. The "international visitors" program at one time targeted the traditional elite, and figures such as Nicolas Sarkozy and François Fillon took advantage of the offer when they were in their thirties.

Note: The fact that Sarkozy and Fillon participated in this years ago does not serve as a very good recommendation, does it? Three weeks is not a long stay. I would imagine the ultimate goal is to induce them to return here for longer periods of study or entrepreneurial activities.

Since September 11, 2001, the Americans have in part reoriented their influence strategy towards (potential) Muslim leaders of Western countries. A step reenforced by the election of Barack Obama. "Our desire is to identify the future French leaders, those who will emerge and occupy positions of responsibility," explains Laura Berg, cultural attaché at the embassy. "The Americans are counting on a social-demographic change in France," adds researcher Vincent Geisser, 42, a specialist on Islam, who left for the United States in 2009. "They figure that today's elite, old and white, are inevitably going to evolve, and they are identifying those who, today on the periphery of the system, are apt to become the new leaders."

Note: "Evolve" here means "die out".

Then the American government is aware of the inevitability of "population substitution". A headline recently in USA Today announced that the United States in a few years will be composed only of minority groups, including a white minority. There will be no dominant culture, except the culture of multi-culturalism itself, with its tedious dumbness and uniformity. The whites, apparently, are expected to die out. It can be assumed as well that when that happens our formerly flourishing and civilized lands will lapse into a permanently backward and violent state, like South Africa today.

The contradiction lies in the fact that we naively think we can have some kind of influence over future Muslim leaders of Western nations, when in fact they are the ones who are influencing us.

The article points to Randiane Peccoud, 53, a Frenchwoman employed at the embassy, as the person who actually locates the candidates for the project. Always on the alert for information, she learns through word-of-mouth who is doing what.

Praise for Peccoud and for the American system come from the participants:

"It's simple. Randiane knows everybody."(...)

"She holds the Who's Who of Diversity."

"(The Americans) are not looking for media personalities, but for people who take action, who are movers, who produce something."

"I have never seen such a network."

The discrepancy between American activism and French reluctance is a source of regret. As if it were still another indication of the lack of interest of French society. "The embassy is advancing on virgin territory that no institution cares to cultivate," notes Antoine Menuisier, the editor of the Bondy Blog. "We are identified by another country as potential leaders, yet we are not recognized here", adds Rokhaya Diallo, 32, president of the Indivisibles, who has just returned from the United States. "In the United States, we are considered as a hope, as a potential mover of tomorrow's France," exults Reda Didi, 34, human resource consultant and president of Graines de France, a think tank devoted to the problems of the ghettos. Majid El-Jarroudi, a manager, 33, was invited to the United States for an economic summit: "What's troubling is that we get more of a response from the American government than from French institutions."

Note: The above comment is ridiculous. The French institutions have poured millions into welfare, educational and health services for these immigrants/invaders. Of course, France is responsible for their being there, but you cannot say they have not been helped. Look at the positions they hold: consultants, sociologists, managers, etc... Having a good job is not enough. They all want to be president of France. Besides which, their religion is the second largest in France, more protected by the government than Catholicism, and well-supplied with places of worship at taxpayers' expense.

Humorist Yassine Belattar summarizes: "(The Americans') strength is that they put everybody on an equal footing. They don't operate, as the French do, according to labels but according to actions. Who is acting? Who is proposing? Who is innovating? Not: What kind of diploma do you have? Where did you study? Who's your father?"

It is hard to imagine a more devious decision on the part of our government (except possibly for New York's decision to build a mosque on Ground Zero). This began under Bush as an initiative of Condaleeza Rice and continues more intensively under Obama. Though it may seem to be just a pragmatic promotion of the American way of doing business, it means much more in today's climate. First, it means that we are giving gifts to the enemy who attacked us on 9/11. Second, it means we are neglecting the normal future leaders of Europe - the Europeans themselves, who should come first. Third, we are helping to propagate the ideology that will bring down the West - Islam and its jihad, the very ideology behind 9/11 and Fort Hood, and countless other attacks. Fourth, we are butting into the political and social life of another country that is perfectly capable of handling its own affairs. Fifth, we are demonstrating an abysmal ignorance of Islamic doctrine and an equally abysmal refusal to have learned the lessons of the past regarding entitlements, affirmative action, and blind egalitarianism. Sixth, we are potentially creating more violence in France as Muslims will perceive the French as more "racist" than Americans. Seventh, by our actions we are condoning the open borders policy of both the EU and the U.S. Eighth, we are betraying France by turning these invaders even more against their host country. Ninth, our government is, in a word, betraying us, and setting a nice trap for itself into which it will fall as it did in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan... If this project grows, men like Sarkozy, using us as an example, will try even harder to force the French into swallowing the need for métissage and total egalitarianism, snuffing out the last remaining embers of national pride and personal self-respect.

We have already done this sort of recruiting here among the inner-city blacks. In the 70's and 80's, employers and universities actively sought the best black candidates they could find to fulfill the demands of affirmative action. The supply quickly ran out, however, and soon businesses and schools were accepting anybody who was black, not just the best. The result has been a general lowering of standards throughout our society, an increase in the demands for entitlements, and ultimately a transformation of the entire value system that has prevailed in America until now..

No conservative, traditionalist American government would ever do this. Only Socialist America (including liberal Republicans like Bush) would ever conceive of such a thing. We should be warning the French about the dangers of allowing massive Third World immigrants into France, not grooming them to become her leaders! This time, if general war breaks out, we really will be the enemy of civilization, as so many like to claim we are. A complete reversal of everything we stood for is taking shape, and because of demographics it will become impossible to reverse course.

As a footnote, I heard today on the news that the overwhelming majority (about 75%) of candidates for the American army are either too fat, too stupid, or too immoral to qualify! Ready for the Caliphate?

Below, actor Samuel L. Jackson with French students in the town of Bondy, department of Seine-Saint-Denis. The encounter, organized by Ambassador Rivkin, took place in April.

Failure Not Allowed

"Satisfied or your money will be refunded" says the sign above.

A society that has degenerated into total egalitarianism will not be able to tolerate any inequalities within the educational system. Long ago, in our American schools, the liberal teachers, parents, administrators, and pressure groups became intolerant of any sign of inequality in grading, since it almost always exposed the deficiencies of one minority or another. If the minorities could not achieve a satisfactory level in the standard curricula that had been in place for decades, then, the standard curricula had to be changed to suit the lowest achievers, rather than place the students in classes according to their abilities, and thus admit to the existence of intellectual differences.

The same has been happening for at least twenty years in France as minorities gradually increased in number, imposing their will on the individual teachers and on National Education. The result is a dysfunctional, worthless system, where everyone gets high grades. The consequences for society are tremendous: poor workers, a degraded popular culture, a loss of the literary and scientific heritage, and pressure for affirmative action in hiring, since employers are loathe to hire incompetent people with bogus diplomas, and have to be forced to do so. The ultimate consequence is more hatred directed at France.

Here are two recent stories culled from François Desouche, the first, dated May 23, deals with replacing the grading system, the second, dated June 9, with the idea of simply passing everybody (this would solve the problem of "differences", wouldn't it?"):

Parents belonging to three educational associations from both the private and public sectors launched an appeal to Luc Chatel, Minister of National Education, to rethink the grading system, which inevitably classifies youngsters according to their results. They propose instead a "contract of confidence".

For these parents it is a question of denouncing this "serious dysfunctionality" that leads to students being classified as "good", "average" and "poor". "Society makes teachers take on the role of selectors despite themselves," explains André Antibi, professor of didactics at the University Paul-Sabatier in Toulouse, who is leading the movement.

Note: A professor of didactics would be one who teaches pedagogy, and pedagogical methods. Here he is saying that teachers do not really want to classify students according to their academic excellence (or lack thereof). But this is the essential job of the teacher after the teaching itself. The teacher has to be a "selector", and this is where the trouble begins in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society where violence will erupt at the slightest hint that some students perform better than others. It certainly never happened when France was French. Furthermore, what takes place in schools in the ghettoes and ethnic neighborhoods will inevitably spill over into all schools and transform them all into low-level "idiot factories".

André Antibi and the parents groups are proposing a "more just evaluation" and would like the government to "implement another system of evaluation such as the contract of confidence."

The contract is described thus by David Desgouilles in an article in Marianne:

In many elementary schools they have already abandoned grades and use instead a measurement of A (learned), B (still being learned) and C (not learned). Apparently this is less stigmatizing than numerical grades up to ten or twenty. (...) The parents groups do not even fear ridicule when they say they would like the grades replaced by a "contract of confidence", using the publicity slogan of a small appliance firm. No more "surprise tests" - the pupil must know systematically what he will be tested on. If he does not, it's a trap. It's useless to try to make them understand that this type of test is intended to check on whether or not the pupil is keeping up with the work. (...)

Note: The small appliance firm he refers to is probably Darty, the company owned by the family of the girl who married Jean Sarkozy, son of Nicolas.

Regarding competitions, he says ironically:

How could the school approve of such vile sentiments? We mustn't stop there. It is urgent that we ban soccer matches and jumping rope games during recess, or at any rate, that we no longer keep score. There must not be winners and losers. Too stigmatizing! Even if they absolutely want to know who won, we must, at all costs, do what is good for them and announce proudly that (...) everybody won.

This comment from a François Desouche reader focuses on the racial aspect of the educational decline:

" You mustn't stigmatize poor (academically speaking) pupils! For generations, poor white pupils have been stigmatized! Nobody cared. Today the majority of pupils are probably black or Maghrebin. That's why you mustn't stigmatize the poor ones. It all strikes me as another way of denying reality."

The second story provides a simple solution to all the vexing problems of inequalities in intelligence, achievement, motivation, conduct, etc... Pass them all!

Daniel Bloch, engineer, physicist, and former head of the Reims School District became famous in 1985 when he launched his objective of an 80% success rate for those old enough to take the baccalaureate exams held at the end of a student's high school studies. Being able to move on to this most important of all tests for French high-schoolers used to be the rigorous way of screening those who could advance to the university, assuming they passed the "Bac". Now he wants to change his goal to 100%!

Marianne interviews him:

- This objective of 100% success rate for those old enough to take the "Bac" exams, is it a provocation?

- Not at all. I remind you that the objective of 80% that I launched in 1985 was to be attained by the year 2000. Now we are in 2010: it is time to set new goals! I admit that it is more of a slogan than a goal: I know well that we'll never reach 100%. The message is above all: we must do better and we can do better.

- But what is the purpose of allowing the greatest possible number of students to take the Bac exams if the diploma is worth less and less?

Note: The interviewer has answered his own question. It is precisely because the Bac is meaningless that everyone will be taking it.

- Unlike you, I am not at all in agreement with those who denounce a so-called deterioration in value of the Bac. For it all depends on what you consider as the "value" of this diploma. If you look at the subjects themselves, you will see that the requirements have considerably increased. Today, someone with the Bac knows much more about the world than 100 years ago. He is better in languages, for example. And in History, formerly it was enough to know a whole series of dates in order to receive a good grade. Today, he is asked to understand their significance. This is much more difficult.

- When we speak of diminished value of the Bac, we mean above all the fact that it is no longer sufficient to get a job... What do you say to those who accuse you of having contributed to this?

- That it has nothing to do with the increase in the number of "bacheliers" (those with the Bac)! It is not the diploma that has lost its value but society that has become more complex. If there are fewer and fewer jobs for unskilled workers, it is because the trades have become more advanced ("perfectionnés"). For example, if it is necessary to have a diploma in the mechanics trade, it is because mechanics itself has become more complex. So to reduce unemployment, we have to increase the number of diplomas.

Note: His statements are too funny to comment on. This is such a good example of pedagogical ineptitude and socialist double-talk. Not to mention political propaganda and the anti-academic attitudes so prevalent in education. Or the unstated, but clearly implied goal of simply giving jobs to all children of immigrants. If a diploma is needed, it too must be a gift, since demands cannot be made on the foreigners.