Juppé: Democracy and Islam are Compatible

The Pope is not the only one making statements of dubious validity about the compatibility between Islam and Western institutions. French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé has some insights into Islam that even Muslims aren't aware of. Joachim Véliocas posted this article three days ago:

The elections in Egypt and Tunisia have not yet taken place, no Islamic government is yet installed in the revolutionary countries, but that has not prevented Alain Juppé (who rolls out the green carpet for the Muslim Brotherhood in Bordeaux) to draw conclusions on the so-called democratic nature of the Islamic ideology. The increasing violence against Christians, the attack on the monasteries by the Egyptian army, must be a preview of "Islamic democracy". The example of Turkey led by the Islamist AK Party, that tracks overly curious reporters and hardly makes an effort to guarantee religious freedom is really encouraging. (There are fourteen times as many honor crimes since the AKP took over.)

The following appeared in La Croix on September 23:

"France has revised it Arab policy, without question," declared the French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé in a long interview September 22 with Al-Jazeerah Arab television.

According to the the head of French diplomacy, "we have given too much importance to what they called the stability of Arab countries, that is to say that we gave too much credit to regimes that told us they were the best ramparts against extremism and religious fanaticism. Thus we underestimated the frustrations of the people and their aspirations for freedom and democracy."

"Who has not made errors?" said Alain Juppé in an attempt to justify himself. "We did not see it coming. The great movement took us by surprise."

"We now understand that the situation had evolved and that we had to change quite simply our way of seeing the relation of Islam to democracy," he explained. We were a bit drugged on the idea that had been instilled in us that Islam was incompatible with democracy. I do not believe it is true. There are Muslim countries attached to their faith, to their religion, and which are completely capable of undergoing democratic evolutions. Morocco, for example, provides a sort of model that must be sustained."

Is Juppé unaware that Christians cannot build churches or announce the Christ in Morocco, thanks to article 220 of the penal code? How can Morocco, corrupt to the marrow, where the people are suffering in extreme poverty, where the apparatchiks dripping with wealth parade by, be a model that inspires other Muslim countries?

Is this cynicism on the part of Juppé or crass ignorance of the reality of Morocco?

Note: Off hand I would say that Juppé is a master of cynicism.

Joachim Véliocas mentioned article 220 of the Moroccan penal code. In another article from his website dated February 15, 2010, he quotes from an NGO called Portes Ouvertes that supports persecuted Christians:

No fewer than fifteen military vehicles surrounded the house. The Christians inside could not believe what was happening: they had merely gathered for a Bible lesson. The event took place on February 4 in Amizmiz, a small town south of Marrakech. Eighteen persons, including five children, were gathered in a private home when sixty officers, two captains and a colonel in the Royal Moroccan Army burst into the building. They arrested the whole group, and confiscated the Bibles and two computers.

The Moroccan Christians were detained in custody for more than fourteen hours before being freed. Two six-month old babies and three children under the age of four were with them. "During all this time, they kept repeating to us that these arrests had been personally ordered by the new Moroccan minister of justice and by the highest command of the gendarmerie, general Housni Benslimane," explained the leader of the Bible study group, whose name cannot be revealed for security reasons. There was also a foreigner in the group who was immediately expelled from the country. According to an Arab press agency, the operation was ordered "as a result of information on a secret meeting that was supposed to initiate people into Christianity and that could shake the faith of the Muslims and the values of the Kingdom".

The article points out that in March and December of the previous year two other Christian study groups had been arrested and held.

Article 220 of the penal code condemns any attempt to change a Muslim's mind on the subject of his faith. A spokesman for the Moroccan government declared in April 2009: "Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to choose your faith." (…)

H/T: Yves Daoudal

One of Daoudal's readers explains why Christianity, more so than Islam, is incompatible with Democracy. The comment is a bit difficult to understand, but I think the gist is clear:

Christianity is certainly much more incompatible with democracy than Islam, if only for the obvious reason that democracy is a tactic used by tyrants to get around the intermediary powers (Napoléon I, Napoléon III, Hitler…); universal suffrage was put into place for this reason: to get around the existing institutions.

Recently, after his coup d'Etat, de Gaulle expanded suffrage for the same reason: to break the "intermediary powers" (…) placing the clique of his heirs in the delicate situation of having to swallow democracy as something other than what it has always been: a political/Machiavellian strategy.

To the brutal oppression of tyrants such as Pilate, Nero and Caesar, against which Islam is unarmed (I do not know of any "Muslim Molière" who can take a stand against the fake demoniacal monarchy), democracy merely adds perfidy to better extend its web. So as Marx noted, the Christian can still invoke the spirit and the letter of the Gospel against the cynical use that the clergy makes of it in the service of public power. Whereas, in a totalitarian democratic republic, the citizen is completely stuck, caught like a fly in the spider's web of "natural right" and anthropology.

This is interesting because we often tend to think of Christianity as being "democratic" or as providing favorable soil on which democracy can grow. But as we see in our current events, democracy is neither good or evil. It depends entirely on the people and who they choose to be their elected leaders. A democracy in its final stages means a type of mob rule orchestrated by the most mercenary, ambitious and violent elements of society. Democracy is not to be confused with "republic", in which there are intermediary powers that prevent the tyranny of both tyrant and mob.

Christianity is better suited to a monarchy or to a republic, precisely because it is itself an intermediary power or an alternative power. Another intermediary power is private schools, something the democratic levelers cannot abide.

Islam is ideally suited to a democracy because the people will always elect the most ideologically indoctrinated Muslims to be their leaders. And no one will be able to dissent and survive.

Pope Benedict Addresses the Muslims of Germany

Here is the translated text of Pope Benedict's address to the Muslims of Germany, delivered on Friday September 23. From Zenit.

Dear Muslim Friends,

I am glad to be able to welcome you here, as the representatives of different Muslim communities in Germany. I thank Professor Mouhanad Khorchide most sincerely for his kind greetings and for the profound reflections that he shared with us. His words illustrate what a climate of respect and trust has grown up between the Catholic Church and the Muslim communities in Germany and how the convictions we share are becoming visible.

Berlin is a good place for a meeting like this, not only because the oldest mosque in Germany is located here, but also because Berlin has the largest Muslim population of all the cities in Germany.

From the 1970s onwards, the presence of numerous Muslim families has increasingly become a distinguishing mark of this country. Constant effort is needed in order to foster better mutual acquaintance and understanding. Not only is this important for peaceful coexistence, but also for the contribution that each can make towards building up the common good in this society.

Many Muslims attribute great importance to the religious dimension of life. At times this is thought provocative in a society that tends to marginalize religion or at most to assign it a place among the individual’s private choices.

The Catholic Church firmly advocates that due recognition be given to the public dimension of religious adherence. In an overwhelmingly pluralist society, this demand is not unimportant. In the process, care must be taken to guarantee that the other is always treated with respect. This mutual respect grows only on the basis of agreement on certain inalienable values that are proper to human nature, in particular the inviolable dignity of every single person as created by God. Such agreement does not limit the expression of individual religions; on the contrary, it allows each person to bear witness explicitly to what he believes, not avoiding comparison with others.

In Germany – as in many other countries, not only Western ones – this common frame of reference is articulated by the Constitution, whose juridical content is binding on every citizen, whether he belong to a faith community or not.

Naturally, discussion over the best formulation of principles like freedom of public worship is vast and open-ended, yet it is significant that the German Basic Law expresses them in a way that is still valid today at a distance of over sixty years (cf. Art. 4:2). In this law we find above all the common ethos that lies at the heart of human coexistence and that also in a certain way pervades the apparently formal rules of operation of the institutions of democratic life.

We could ask ourselves how such a text – drawn up in a radically different historical epoch, that is to say in an almost uniformly Christian cultural situation – is also suited to present-day Germany, situated as it is within a globalized world and marked as it is by a remarkable degree of pluralism in the area of religious belief.

The reason for this seems to me to lie in the fact that the fathers of the Basic Law at that important moment were fully conscious of the need to find truly solid ground with which all citizens would be able to identify and which could serve as the supporting foundation for everyone, irrespective of their differences. In seeking this, mindful of human dignity and responsibility before God, they did not prescind from their own religious beliefs; indeed for many of them, the real source of inspiration was the Christian vision of man. But they knew that everyone has to engage with the followers of other religions and none: common ground for all was found in the recognition of some inalienable rights that are proper to human nature and precede every positive formulation.

In this way, a society which at that time was essentially homogenous laid the foundations that we today may consider valid for a markedly pluralistic era, foundations that actually point out the evident limits of pluralism: it is inconceivable, in fact, that a society could survive in the long term without consensus on fundamental ethical values.

Dear friends, on the basis of what I have outlined here, it seems to me that there can be fruitful collaboration between Christians and Muslims. In the process, we help to build a society that differs in many respects from what we brought with us from the past. As believers, setting out from our respective convictions, we can offer an important witness in many key areas of life in society. I am thinking, for example, of the protection of the family based on marriage, respect for life in every phase of its natural course or the promotion of greater social justice.

This is another reason why I think it important to hold a day of reflection, dialogue and prayer for peace and justice in the world, which as you know we plan to do on 27 October next in Assisi, twenty-five years after the historic meeting there led by my predecessor, Blessed Pope John Paul II. Through this gathering, we wish to express, with simplicity, that we believers have a special contribution to make towards building a better world, while acknowledging that if our actions are to be effective, we need to grow in dialogue and mutual esteem.

With these sentiments I renew my sincere greetings and I thank you for this meeting, which for me has been a great enrichment of my visit to my homeland. Thank you for your attention!

Tristane To Confront DSK

Here's the latest English-language article from the Daily Mail on Tristane Banon's crusade to reform the French justice system regarding rape cases. According to the article she may come face to face with Dominique Strauss-Kahn as early as this week.

The readers' comments are generally hostile towards her.

Double Standard

The French bloggers followed the two executions that took place recently in America. Here is a succinct comment from Yves Daoudal:

Lawrence Brewer, sentenced to death, was executed yesterday in Texas. Troy Davis, sentenced to death, was executed today in Georgia.

No one spoke about the first one, but the second was the object of a planetary campaign.

This is because the first one was a mean white racist who killed a nice black guy, while the second was a nice black guy who killed a mean white policeman.

Islam Will Dominate

An article from the Catholic News Agency, with some outdated statistics on the number of Muslims in France, nonetheless closes with some interesting thoughts:

In a bid to solve the space crisis in the southern city of Marseille, a mosque to accommodate 7,000 worshippers is currently being built. Twenty-five percent of Marseille's population is Muslim.

Last month a mosque for 2,000 worshippers opened in the eastern town of Strasbourg, where 15 percent of the population is Muslim.

France is often referred to as the “eldest daughter of the Catholic Church,” because the local Church has maintained unbroken communion with the Bishop of Rome since the 2nd century.

But some senior European bishops have long predicted the eclipse of Catholicism by Islam across the continent.

In 1999, Archbishop Giuseppe Bernardini, an Italian Franciscan who heads the Izmir Archdiocese in Turkey, recalled a conversation he had with a Muslim leader for the Synod of European Bishops, which was gathered in Rome. That leader told him, “thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you. Thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you.”

H/T: The Liberty Phile

The two short videos below show what life is like in France today. The first takes place on a bus. The second is in Marseille. No translation necessary.

Banning Street Prayers?

Watch the 7-minute video. Words are not necessary, but I will put up an explanation as soon as I can. About a week ago Interior Minister Claude Guéant issued a ban on street prayers in Paris. Here is the result.

"Death to the Jews", "We will blow up all the neighborhoods", and other calls to violence appear in this video. But it is obvious that these demonstrators know exactly what to do and how to terrorize. They accuse France and the French Socialist Party of being "pro-Israel". For them France is the world's leading "Islamophobic" country.

At one point in the Riposte Laïque-produced video, the viewer is told to "find the error" in a scene of Muslim men praying in the street. I thought the "error" was that they were defying the law, but no, RL is true to its feminist ideology. For them the "error" is that there are no women praying! So if there were women, it would be OK?

H/T: Novopress

Flood Of Comments

The previous entry on the Daily Mail article triggered more comments than I can post. The comments being withheld (besides those that have vulgarities)are in French and deal with a French historian named Paul-Eric Blanrue who admitted in 2009 that he had converted to Islam. He gave an interview to an Algerian reporter named Rachid Guedjal that is posted at an Algerian website.

I am providing the link above for those who read French. I do not have time to translate it right now. Blanrue reveals himself to be an historian of persuasive rhetoric, twisted, pathological and disloyal, but persuasive to those who are either ignorant or predisposed to destroying their civilization. He holds the "Zionists" as responsible for the ills befalling us, he returns to the idea of the Jewish blood libel, he sees no reason why Catholicism should not meld with Islam, in order to recapture its spiritual roots. He claims that Islam is necessary today to abolish the materialistic Zionist society that has destroyed Christianity and he compares the Muslim presence as comparable to Jesus cleansing the Temple.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

He claims that the French are being primed to fear Islam so that Marine Le Pen will get to the second round. Then she will be duly demolished and Sarkozy and the Zionists will continue to take over. This may not be entirely without foundation, if you change the word "Zionists" to "multiculturalists, or "Masons", or "liberals, in the American sense" or just plain "destroyers of civilization" - the D.O.C's, as I used to call my colleagues when I was teaching.

If I can find the time I will translate it because it is an excellent example of a person who connects the dots so as to make Jews the incarnation of Evil and Muslims the saviors. Islam could not have asked for a more eloquent patsy.

This is also a reminder that history is often wasted on the historians.

A British Journalist Looks At France

A reader sent in a great article from the Daily Mail. I have little to add since I talk about these issues regularly, but how refreshing it is to know that Britain has at least one realistic journalist: Richard Waghorne. The opening paragraphs:

France still looks like and feels like France in the centre of Paris. You do not have to travel very far from the usual tourist sites, however, to start to understand the French ban on the full Islamic face-veil, which saw the first token conviction this week.

One tourist site that has quietly slipped off the traditional itineraries, for very good reasons, is the Basilica of Saint-Denis. Resting place of French kings and queens for more than a thousand years, the cathedral will see the interment next year of recently rediscovered remains of Henry IV. Ask Parisians if they have ever been to visit and they will say, almost uniformly, that they have not.

France’s equivalent to Westminster Abbey sits is today a forsaken Christian island in a surrounding Islamic sea. The population is 70% Muslim. French police publicly list much of the district as a no-go area. Walking through the area, one wonders not only whether one is really in France but whether one is even in Europe.

Saint-Denis requires a short trip from central Paris to be seen but the increasing Islamisation of France is visible even within the confines of central Paris proper. Within minutes of the tourist district of Montmartre, locals have had to put up with the police-assisted shutdown of public streets each Friday to facilitate Islamic prayers. Quite literally, the streets have been handed over weekly to French Muslims, complete with cordons preventing locals from passing through. The area also grows ever more unsafe for non-Muslims. A gay acquaintance of mine has been attacked three times in the neighbourhood while travelling to visit friends.

A new law has recently addressed public prayer but it remains to be seen whether the French authorities will take it any more seriously than their niqab-ban – because, notwithstanding the Europe-wide wave of condemnation from human rights lawyers and deluded feminist organisations when the face-veil ban was first passed, it has long since become clear that the French state is not even remotely interested in enforcing it or in responding to growing French anger at the erosion of their culture and the outright surrender of tracts of their country.

Despite being passed in April, the ban on the veil has been more or less completely ignored by French Muslims and French police alike. Not even a hundred women breaking the law have been stopped by police since its passage. The police can in any case do no more than send on a file. Of these, ‘fewer than ten’ are considered active by the French Ministry for Justice. Even by the febrile standards of the routinely hysterical multicultural left, the alleged-wave of persecution against French Muslims is an exceptionally extravagant fantasy.

Read more.

Note: The only error I found was in his outdated statistic on the number of Muslims in France. He says five million, a figure from the late '90's. It cannot be less than twice that number today.

Five million was the official figure issued by the Interior Department over a decade ago. Babies have been born, thousands of new legal immigrants have entered, and then there are the illegals, the descendants, the children of mixed marriages, etc…

The readers' comments are also very revealing.

Grand Prix for Mosques

Le Mans, known world-wide for the auto race that culminates in the Grand Prix, may soon become known as the city of mosques. According to a Muslim website called Trouve ta Mosquée ("find your mosque") there will soon be a fifth mosque for the roughly 33,000 Muslim residents of the city:

There are four mosques in Le Mans, but already they are insufficient for the faithful of this city. On September 16, the new association Lumières d'Islam ("lights of Islam") grouping Muslims of all origins (Maghrebin, Turk, sub-Saharan African, converts…) presented a plan for the creation of a Muslim cultural and religious center.

It's purpose is to bring together several activities:

- A 1000 m2 religious center for men and women

- An educational and cultural center (5 modular classrooms, leisure activities…)

- Shops

It will be an particularly modern building, functional and totally ecological (passive construction), linked by a trolley line.

Note: "passive" here refers to the fact that there is no heating system in the usual sense. Solar heat is retained through special types of windows.

Other novelties of the center include a child-care system that will allow the greatest number of parents to attend prayers on Fridays, Holidays, and during Ramadan.

This Muslim center will also be open to all via open doors, public activities and art expositions…

The Muslim community of Le Mans represents about 11% of the city's population of about 300,000. Figures that demonstrate indisputably the necessity of a new mosque in Le Mans.

During our Ramadan Road Trip, we stopped in this city where we met members of the association. We learned in this way about the group's motivation and their wish to fulfill the needs of the Muslims.

(We) will certainly follow closely this original project.

One reader agrees saying that he lives near Le Mans and every Friday there is no more room. He closes with "amine inchallah" ("Amen. God willing").

Top: the projected mosque in tones of violet.

A Pact Among Rogues

There is supposed to be honor among thieves, but not when it comes to Dominique Strauss-Kahn. In his interview Sunday on French television, he made a statement that has sent some shock waves through the Socialist Party, in particular Martine Aubry, second in the polls after François Hollande for the nomination in the presidential election.

Apparently, well before his arrest in New York, a "pact" had been made between Aubry and DSK ensuring that one or the other of them would get the nomination. While he was the first choice of the Party, if he didn't run she would become the candidate - a substitute candidate, as they are calling her. This places Martine Aubry's political future in the unenviable position of being inextricably linked to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and dependent upon secret deals with him. Aubry has attempted to deny the existence of such a pact, but she has been betrayed again by rival François Hollande who says that the pact was an open secret - everyone knew. Here is a report from Le Point:

François Hollande affirmed on Monday that Dominique Strauss-Kahn had told the truth when he spoke of his "pact" with Martine Aubry for the Socialist primary, stressing that this "arrangement, this compromise was known to all."

When he was asked if it was a "relief" for him that DSK would not be participating in the primary, he answered that he had "no special fear" that the ex-chief of the IMF "intervene in one way or another", since his own position had "never been determined in relation to that of DSK."

" I believe that he told the truth: there was a pact between him, Martine Aubry, and Laurent Fabius," Hollande stated. According to the deputy from Corrèze, "this idea of an agreement - you can call it a pact, arrangement, compromise - was known to all, no one had ever denied it."

Note: No one denied it except Aubry herself after Strauss-Kahn pulled the rug out on Sunday. But by denying it, she only made matters worse, since, from the comments at the message boards, the French knew that she had spoken openly about it.

When Strauss-Kahn made his comment he was not only attempting to destroy Martine Aubry, but he was perhaps saying in the only way he knows how, that he would get back in the race.

Martine Aubry would be the worst choice after DSK. She has actively Islamized the city of Lille where she is mayor. She has the Algerian flag flying outside Lille Airport. She has agreed to special hours at swimming pools for Muslim girls, thus denying French girls their rights. And her lawyer husband has defended terrorists and rap singers.

The in-fighting among Socialist candidates will no doubt benefit Nicolas Sarkozy, unless Marine Le Pen can garner enough votes in the first round to destroy Sarkozy. She would then have to confront the Socialists in the second round. She would have not only the support of the Front National and its affiliates, but the support as well of a certain number of Sarkozy's constituents, who have the guts to vote for her. It would probably not be enough to win, since so many French people freak out at the mention of the name Le Pen. But it would be a major step forward for France.

The photo above shows Martine Aubry with François Hollande, who will probably get the nomination. He is the former civil union "partner" of Ségolène Royal, the candidate who lost the 2007 election to Nicolas Sarkozy. They lived together for 25 years and have four children.

Below the Great Rogue, with the Socialist logo behind him, seems to be laughing at his rivals.

Marine Le Pen Speaks to Russia Today

In this 10-minute interview with Russia Today, from May 2011, Marine Le Pen answers questions on many pertinent topics. Her final comments touching on Israel, America and the desirability of an alliance with Russia are arguable (I am not getting into those issues now), and her desire to amend the Constitution to outlaw "communities" (meaning ethnic communities who live by their own law) is the republican principle according to which all are "citizens", blood and ethnicity being suppressed as identity factors. But forcing foreigners to behave as Frenchmen may not work, and repatriation may become necessary. Furthermore, if she outlaws ethnic communitarianism, she may have to outlaw regional loyalties as well. The Bretons, the Normans, the Burgundians, the Alsatians, etc... are in a way ethnic communities who are compatible with each other if not with Paris. Despite her weak points, on the whole her opinions and positions are a breath of fresh air, compared to the stiflingly controlled discourse we normally hear from French politicians.

The main defect with the video is the unpleasant voice of the translator. But at least it gives English-language viewers a chance to become acquainted with her and possibly to realize that she is not the ogre some would have her be. She is, right now, the only sane voice in France.

DSK - A Study in Mediocrity

Everyone's favorite banker is back in the headlines. Sunday night, for 23 minutes, Dominique Strauss-Kahn gave his version of the events on French television TF1. In the video of the interview with Claire Chazal (a friend of Anne Sinclair), he comes across as a pompous hypocrite, a character straight out of Molière's gallery of self-important puffed-up sybarites, a complete phony, who gives himself a slap on the wrist for his naughty behavior.

But few were fooled. The message boards indicate that many Frenchmen feel he lied about everything, that the interview was obviously pre-rehearsed, and that it would have been better if he had stayed home.

He is not a good liar and he is not a good actor. He's solemn, oh so solemn, he pretends to look sad as he unconvincingly claims to feel sorry for his betrayal of the trust the French people had in him, and he waves the Prosecutor's Report in the air as if it were a banner proving beyond a doubt his innocence, which it does not.

And he is evil. His eyes betray a cruelty and a coldness that his silver tongue cannot conceal.

While I would like to translate the entire interview, it would take a long time, and other things are more important. Maybe it will appear in English on YouTube one day. The next best thing, and perhaps even better than a translation , is this "letter from Paris" by Joseph Harriss, an American journalist who lives in France. His description coincides perfectly with my own impressions. I especially appreciate his comments about the demeanor and appearance of Strauss-Kahn, who looked mummified with eyelids painted bright pink and heavy pancake.

I have to admit I was surprised at how bad he was. I expected a more skilled performance. He betrayed not only his hypocrisy, but his mediocrity in matters of finance, since he feels that Greece needs to be bailed out, when it is obvious to all, including economic dummies like myself, that bailing out one country after another, while the richer countries are going broke on immigration and welfare, may not work.

One thing Mr. Harriss does not mention, but which should be noted as extremely important in an ominous way, were the closing statements by Strauss-Kahn in which he expressed his hopes for an immigration to replace the dying European population. A reader was kind enough to send that statement in English:

He was also interested "in the problem of demographics, because we are getting older, and it brings the problem of immigration, which must not be dodged –but we won't talk about it tonight. But we need immigration, organized in a welcoming way, or else, our countries will get too old."

This is pure evil. His country is dying because European women are either not having children or having abortions. The school system no longer transmits the French heritage to the young; Catholic priests are ashamed of being priests; non-French food, authorized by imams, is being shoved down the throats of everyone including children in their school cafeterias; crime has broken the spirit of a once-free people who never feared the subway, or the buses, or the lonely small streets in the more ancient sections of their towns; young people are being encouraged and even threatened to intermarry with other races to prevent "in-breeding"; a "lead cover" (what they call a "chape de plomb") has choked free speech and extinguished rational thought; dissent is labeled "racism"; all this and more is happening every day and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who would be president if he could, wants more.

In his closing words he revealed what he really is: anti-culture, anti-French, anti-Western, and anti-human.

Islam versus Europe

There is an excellent website some of you are familiar with called Islam versus Europe. Administered by Cheradenine Zakalwe, it presents a wide spectrum of alarming news about the ever more rapid and relentless Islamization of Europe, which is now spreading like wildfire. He covers some of the stories about France that I have covered and a few I haven't gotten to yet. Recently I posted a short video on the confrontation in the European Parliament between Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Jean-Marie Le Pen. But there is a longer version, in two 3-minute videos, with English dubbing. If you are interested in seeing the scene click here. The second of the two is more interesting, for it shows a gloating Cohn-Bendit geting the better of Le Pen who is not allowed to say anything.

While you are there, you can read about how Muslims defied the so-called ban on street prayers (I hope to have some information on this soon.)

Finally, don't miss this video on the French police being routed by a bunch of Algerians.

There are several articles on Germany that are of great interest. It appears that Berlin is rapidly becoming Islamized.

I have been receiving many links in the comments sent by readers. I do not have time to check all of them, but I thank you for them, especially when they are related to the topic at hand. The posts on Norway in particular have generated a lot of commentary with links.

71 Billion Euros - The Cost of Immigration

In my recent article on Marine Le Pen's speech in Nice last week, I expressed my surprise at her claim that the annual cost of immigration in France has reached 70 billion euros. It sounded impossibly high. But she based her statement on the work of economist Gérard Pince, who has in the past used his mathematical and actuarial skills to estimate realistically the number of immigrants in France.

Pince spoke with Pierre Cassen of Riposte Laïque, and explained briefly his statistical methods and his opinion on the underlying motives for the massive immigration that is strangling France both culturally and economically. Here are excerpts from that interview, beginning with his political preferences:

- I'm sorry that ideological differences on the sex of angels is dividing the forces of the resistance. For my part, I am sticking to one simple rule. I support without reservation all those who fight against immigration and the Islamization of our country. The fight against this invasion must take precedence over all other considerations. I am trying to convince others of this conviction but there is still much to do. Reciprocally, I feel that the resistance movements ought to concentrate on their main mission and avoid those topics that are divisive, such as the future of Europe or the euro!

- You have just published a report on the cost of Third World immigration for 2009. You say it amounted to 71 billion euros. Why is this study more reliable than others that explain how this immigration benefits France, and still others, like Jean-Paul Gourevitch, who don't arrive at the same figures you do?

- The answer can be found in the report. The studies that claim that immigration enriches us are part of a scandalous fraud, especially when they come out of the universities. I know Jean-Paul Gourevitch's work. He deals with immigration in general (including European immigrants) and he does not take into account direct descendants. Moreover, his approach is different. I was the first to determine, in 2004, the cost of Third World immigration. This is not about ethnic statistics because my method is based on the spatial origins of migrants and their descendants. As far as I know, geography is not yet forbidden! The figures are worse than in 2004 because of the crisis that has reduced revenues while the expenditures have stayed the same or increased. Furthermore, between 2004 and 2009, the number of immigrants and descendants grew from the double effect of new arrivals and births. In conclusion, I regard my method as the correct one.

- In your opinion, in this time of crisis and massive unemployment, why does the government continue to bring in new immigrants? Do you agree with Bat Ye'Or's theory of Eurabia and secret agreements, or with André Gérin, who accuses the government of responding to the demands of employers in order to lower the cost of labor?

- Clearly, I share the opinion of André Gérin. Management pleads for a massive immigration (check the comments made by MEDEF) and lets the taxpayer foot the bill. For many executives, a well-run business must reduce expenses with the help of immigrants and move out of the country as much as possible. Middle management has no future and a native Frenchman must belong to the elite in order to keep his job. At this rate, we will soon have salaries that are as low as those of under-developed countries. Furthermore, this is the goal of a certain type of globalization. For their part, the unions and the Left seek freedom of movement for workers in the name of the sacrosanct "fight against racism". Thus they encourage a lowering of salaries and unemployment. If they did not exist, the big multinational countries would have to invent them in order to go on stuffing themselves on profits!

Note: "MEDEF" is the largest union of employers in France. The letters stand for "Movement of French Enterprises".

Pince, like Marine Le Pen, is taking the economic point of view in the cultural war that is being waged on French soil. For them, it is an economic imperative to stop immigration, because it lowers the salaries of the French and often deprives them of work and benefits to which they are entitled. Pince even rejects Bat Ye'or's position on Eurabia, and instead follows André Gérin, a Communist. Theoretically, the entire French Left should side with André Gérin, but instead they have chosen to be globalists and multiculturalists, thus putting themselves in the strange position of advocating lower salaries for their fellow Frenchmen. Gérin, at least, has some nationalist loyalties.

Nonetheless, read on, and you will see that he is aware of the deeper issue of cultural survival.

- How do you see the future of your country?

- I don't see it. The French have been lobotomized. The oligarchy speaks to them as if they are terminally ill. At bottom, our government is a hospice that administers palliative care. It is attempting to accompany painlessly the disappearance of one population and its replacement by another. The rich will go off to the islands. As for the poor, they will be placed in special homes. And then, euthanasia was not made just for dogs.

So Pince is aware, after all, that the French population is in danger of extinction. And that the decades-old policies on immigration and Islamization may have motives that are not purely economic.

I have not had time to study his report, but those who know French can read it at his website.

Below, a wonderful old print from the collection of Maggie Land Blanck, depicting a different kind of immigration - to America, where they would be carefully screened and tested for disease before being admitted. Moreover, this immigration resulted not in widespread poverty and degradation but in the lightening-fast growth of a new civilization. The losers, in this case, were the Native Americans, who succumbed to European diseases and who were greatly overpowered and outnumbered in the battles they fought to save their cultures, though they often fought fiercely and bravely. We have always been taught to feel guilty for what we did to the Indians, but the sheer inevitability of the discovery of the land, the urge to start afresh, the optimism that must have sent millions, including my family, to our shores, and the dazzling successes of the new nation are too impressive for guilt. The foundations of America were Anglo-Saxon, even if the inhabitants were diverse. It was a diversity in tune with Anglo-Saxon customs and mores and perfectly willing to obey the Anglo-Saxon Constitution.


See the whole collection of beautiful prints at Maggie Blanck.

Retired Couple Slain

The bodies of an elderly retired couple, residents of Maurepas, department of Yvelines, were discovered on Friday, September 2. Le Parisien published two articles, on September 4 and 14. Here is a condensed version of the story of a sadistic crime:

A suspect has been identified in the case of the killings in Maurepas. A man, 22, who was being sought by investigators of the Versailles regional police department, fled to Algeria, his native country. One source close to the case said he was the son of an old man with whom he lived in a housing project located just behind the victims' house. He knew them because he used their address and came every two or three days to pick up his mail. He had probably gotten to know them through his father."

Note: Right there you have the makings for a murder. Why did he not use the address of the project he was living in? (The "project" was built by ADEF, an association that lodges migrant workers.) Why didn't the family members warn the couple of the dangers inherent in befriending immigrants?

On Friday September 2, around 8:30 p.m. firemen found the lifeless bodies of Marie-Louise Michenaud, 77, and her husband Gilbert, 72, bathed in blood. Gilbert was bound to a piece of furniture with wire and his wife lay beside him. The desk was upside down. The medics had to break down the locked door. Detectives found no traces of a break-in. (…) "Since he knew the victims, the killer probably had no trouble getting in", added another source.

The autopsy revealed that Gilbert and Marie-Louise had been tortured. "They were pricked several times with the point of a knife and to finish them off, the killer slit their throats." In all probability, the goal of the torturer (or torturers) was to get their bank card number. "These two persons suffered a veritable calvary and their murderer acted with methodical cold-bloodedness," added the same source.

The investigation established that the hunted man, an illegal on French territory, used the couple's bank card to pay for a trip to Algeria, shortly after the murders. "Other people were seen in his company, notably at the Giga Store, not far from the victims' house, where he made purchases with the same bank card. But it is still too early to tell if they are implicated in the murder." The investigation goes on…

The comments from Le Parisien readers are unanimous: the 2012 election can't come soon enough, Sarkozy will be out, we must close the borders, etc… Here are two:

- The polls are saying that 56% of the French are for the return of the Socialists!!! Poor France, a country where foreigners slit the throats of the people who built the country. Sad.

- Certain criminals immediately take a plane for Algeria. They should ask for group rates.

According to the September 4 article in Le Parisien, the couple was known to be very gullible and too kind for their own good. One of their neighbors, Daniel, spoke to police:

Daniel declared that his neighbors often received door-to-door salesmen into their home. Described as "very hospitable", even "naive", Gilbert and Marie-Louise often opened their door to salesmen. They had even just signed a contract for a new entry door for 6000 euros. "They never stopped being taken in and, this time, they were really rolled over," said Daniel angrily. Fortunately, on my advice, they sent a letter of retraction a few weeks ago to the company."

Below, the victims' house in Maurepas.

Bernadette Chirac's Brother and Niece Attacked

Is nothing sacred?

Here's a crime that may embarrass the authorities. From Le Parisien:

The brother and niece of Bernadette Chirac (photo), wife of former president Jacques Chirac, were the victims of a violent attack, Wednesday evening around 11:00 p.m. in the Paris metro. They were attacked by a group of eight young people, as the train pulled in to the Champs-Elysées-Clémenceau station.

The two sides apparently exchanged "heated words" until the quarrel ended with punches and kicks. The brother and niece of Bernadette Chirac were assisted by the transport police before being authorized a twelve-day medical work-stoppage. Bernadette Chirac's sister-in-law, also present during the attack, was not injured. Five of the eight attackers were arrested and held in custody.

This is all I know for now. Since Bernadette Chirac is 77, her brother and her niece cannot be very young. I will be interested in the details, if they become public. What started the argument? What was it about? Why were they on the subway that late at night? And what kind of work do they do? How bad were the injuries?

Regarding Jacques Chirac, the only news is that his health is failing, possibly because of the stress of the investigations of which he is the object. Financial scandals involving monetary gifts from African leaders have implicated both Chirac and former prime minister Dominique de Villepin.

Le Pen vs. Cohn-Bendit

In this video, from September 14, Daniel Cohn-Bendit denounces Jean-Marie Le Pen for his remarks on the Norway killings, saying that he brings "shame" to the European Parliament for placing the laxness of the Norwegian authorities above the massacre itself in importance. If you recall, JMLP's statement at the time was critical of Norway for not recognizing the dangers of mass immigration.

In retaliation, Le Pen, with Marine seated next to him, tries to explain that he had made a political statement about the Norwegian government, that a "pedophile" such as Cohn-Bendit who was once indicted by that very Parliament for participating in terrorism is accusing him, that he has a right to respond to the accusations of Cohn-Bendit and that the EU Parliament consists of a bunch of Bolsheviks...

Marine Le Pen on Immigration

Marine Le Pen delivered a speech at a political convention held in Nice on September 10 and 11. The convention provided a podium for the leaders of the Front National, though the spotlight was on her and her goals for the party. These goals are well-known, but need to be repeated and strengthened with unambiguous language. While the speech, which you can view on two RuTube videos at the FN website, is too long to translate in its entirety, I am presenting here those excerpts on immigration, since it is the topic of highest priority:

(…) Is it in the interests of France to impose on our country massive immigration?

From the evidence, No! Since almost five million of our compatriots are unemployed, what interest can there be in allowing 203,000 more legal immigrants in every year, 5% of whom have a work contract, while the others are the burden of the taxpayers? This is 78% more than under Lionel Jospin in 2000…

There can be only one objective in this, obviously to lower salaries and to try to grab a few competitive points on the backs of the taxpayers in a mad auction with low-bidding emerging countries.

Note: She avoids the issue of population substitution as a motive behind immigration preferring to use economic expediency.

The labor market, as its name indicates, is a market that evolves in terms of supply and demand. You don't have to be an economist to understand that in times of massive unemployment, the more demand there is for jobs, the lower the salaries.

Any more than you would have to graduate from business school to realize that if we bring in every year the equivalent of the population of Rennes, while 1.2 million households are awaiting subsidized housing, we will create a penury of housing and a terrifying increase in rents (already +24% in ten years, according to a recent study).

She then notes that Yves-Marie Laulan, the former president of the economic committee of NATO estimates the yearly cost of immigration at 70 billion. If this refers just to France (in euros) it is astronomical.

You need only have eyes to see that this massive arrival, in a short time, 20 or 30 years, of women and men, the great majority of whom have a culture very different from our own, renders all assimilation unworkable and even impossible. France is thus confronted by a multiculturalism that is wreaking havoc with her laws, her mores, her traditions, in short the values of her civilization and her identity. Multi-cultural societies always become multi-conflictual societies.

And so I solemnly say here that it is in France's interest to stop all immigration and even to encourage the turning back of the flood.

We have ample means to train welders, factory workers, waiters, cooks, doctors and engineers.

We do not need immigrants as workers because there isn't any work and because in this difficult period the little that does exist should go first to our own!

As for the cynical argument that says we should bring in immigrants for jobs that the French refuse to do, we must silence it.

(…)

We must help the French!

In this respect you will agree that there is scant difference between the UMP and the PS:

- 114,000 legal immigrants under Jospin en 2000, 203,000 under Sarkozy in 2010, 78% more immigration than the Socialists. He did a good job!

- The Socialists dreamed of banning the deportation of criminal aliens. Sarkozy did it!

- The Left hoped to weaken laïcité and foster any and all ethnic demands. The Right did it!

- With the French Council on the Muslim Religion (CFCM) in the hands of fundamentalists, street prayers on the increase - a problem I have dealt with for months - long-term leases or guaranteed loans for the construction of places of worship, the general spread of halal foods, Islamic finance implemented by Madame Lagarde…

Everything, I mean everything, even the concert given by SOS Racism on July 14 at place de la Concorde as in the good old days of François Mitterand!

Amnesty for illegals was authorized once a year by the Socialists. Today there is massive amnesty on a daily basis - 20,000 according to Le Monde in 2010!

There is only one question. Did the French people elect Sarkozy for this? At least with the Socialists, we know where we're going. As far as being the worst is concerned, they never disappoint us. But in this domain as in many others, it is not too late to act and to restore some order to our country.

We must apply simple but firm rules to dissuade migration:

- Add a Constitutional amendment that bans all communitarianism, in order to stop definitively all (ethnic and religious) demands and to preserve our culture, our identity and the values of our Republic;

- Send out clear and comprehensible signals to everyone;

- Laïcité is not negotiable and each one must bend to the laws of the host country;

- Nationality is not an administrative situation, it is a privilege, a commitment, a feeling of pride, a will, and the nation has the right to be demanding in its choices;

- Amnesty for illegals is a sign of incompetence.

Those who come to our territory or who remain here illegally cannot, must not, be legalized. Either they are documented, or they are not, and in this case, they must not be given a residency visa.

Who would allow someone to keep an object that was fraudulently acquired?

Who would allow a business executive to keep money that he stole from his own business? Legalizing undocumented aliens incites to violate the laws and is even a reward. It is inadmissible in a State governed by Rule of Law...

Moreover, it is an incredible injustice to those foreigners who made the effort to apply for legal authorizations and to fulfill the conditions required to obtain them.

If I am elected, I will have a bill passed to abolish the law authorizing amnesty for illegals.

Amnesty for illegals will disappear pure and simple from our law.

(…)

Back to "Normal"

It was necessary for me to be away from the computer for several days. It could not be helped. Several different problems and responsibilities converged, but things should be back to normal soon - or as normal as possible, considering my frequent work stoppages. Thanks to all for your comments. There is much to talk about as usual, but one event stands out - Marine Le Pen made a speech on September 11 in which she said that she would end all immigration if elected. Not just illegal immigration, but ALL immigration. She also discussed he miserable failure of Sarkozy's presidency and the serious economic crisis involving the euro.

Regarding these important issues, you can check this video, sent by a reader, of an interview conducted by Russia Today with a German law professor who believes the euro will soon be an illusion of the past. He also has some unabashedly realistic words about Islam.

I was silent on September 11, partly because I could not get to the computer, but also because there is little left to say. The only good news I heard somewhere was that the Ground Zero mosque may not be built after all.

You must have seen Paul Simon sing his famous song, but if you missed it, here it is. Thanks to the reader for the link.

CBN Looks at Norway

The Christian Broadcasting Network has produced a video on the rapes of white women in Norway. The video, subtitled in French, was made before the massacre of 77 people on Utoya Island in July by Anders Breivik.



H/T: Islamisation

Admiration for Anne Sinclair

Blogger Michel Garroté writing at drzz.info reveals the latest Harris poll on the DSK affair:

According to an interactive Harris poll, for the weekly journal VSD (Vendredi-Samedi-Dimanche), 58% of the French say they have a very good or rather good image of Anne Sinclair (wife of DSK), versus 33% who have a rather bad or very bad image of her. A majority of 54% say they understand the attitude adopted by Anne Sinclair during the New York legal proceedings involving her husband. Some 75% of the persons questioned feel that the adjective "strong" suits Anne Sinclair well. Seventy-two percent also judge her to be "courageous" and 70% "dignified".

There's still a lot of fighting ahead in French households!

Here are some readers' comments:

- Who knows… the way things are going… perhaps she too will seek the presidency.

- This poll says more about the morality, or rather the relative absence of morality, of the French people than it does about Mme Sinclair. Is it surprising that a good part of the French have forgotten the libertine habits of the Strauss-Kahn couple in certain Parisian clubs? The answer is no, since for a majority of people this fact (an open secret for a small circle of politicians and for the microcosm of the media) was hidden and did not surface until the revelations were made following the Sofitel affair.

Our American friends say: "It takes two to tango". The question is therefore: how is it that a woman like Anne Sinclair accepted that her husband could "go take a look elsewhere" for so many years? Far be it for me to place all the blame for her husband's indiscretions on Mme Sinclair, but rather than a strong dignified and courageous woman we should see her as a woman who feels guilty for having let things slide and for not having reacted at her husband's first indiscretion. Which probably would have averted a lot of problems for DSK stemming from his conduct as a "hot rabbit". She is also a woman who is guilty because of the bad example set for their children, that she has gone along with by standing by her husband 100% in this affair. But Mme Sinclair is not different from anyone else in this case. As the common expression says, "You cannot remake yourself". The Sofitel affair was bound to happen one way or another since the actors in this disaster know the script by heart!

The comment above implies that she participated herself in some wrong-doing. The author states that the "couple" (not just DSK) engaged in "libertine habits", unless I am interpreting his words too broadly. She participated, of course, by not being critical and by staying with him when it was clear he was out of control. But did she herself participate in libertine activities?

I have not come upon anything to corroborate this theory. Maybe her acceptance of her husband's seriously deviant behavior is enough to warrant the label "libertine"?

The photo above was taken in New York the day the District Attorney dismissed all charges. What struck me when I saw it was that no such demonstration took place in Avignon at the end of the trial of the rapists of Carpentras, the topic of my preceding post. Perhaps it is easier to protest the acquittal of a rich white man than to exhibit righteous indignation at the soft sentences for a group of brutal young immigrants.

Justice Intimidated

Here's one for the books. If the stories about pregnant women being raped upset you, be prepared for some nausea. The article appears at Valeurs Actuelles. The author is Xavier Raufer, a well-known criminologist, and it deals with a crime that took place six years ago in the city of Carpentras, department of Vaucluse, in southern France:

The verdict was announced in early July. We were afraid it would be revolting, and it was. Here are the facts. In April 2005, a 14-year-old runaway girl wandered into a lawless ghetto in Carpentras where she was captured by a gang. For the entire month of April she was raped in basements or in hotels by about thirty individuals 16 - 22 years of age. She was exhibited, filmed by the savages, and on a highway even prostituted to drivers passing by.

The poor girl spoke of a "nightmare". These facts are made more serious because the repetition of the crime and the premeditation are blatant. The reader should be aware that anyone convicted of "gang rape of a 15-year-old minor", of "kidnapping", of "corruption of a minor" and of "aggravated procuring" may receive ten to fifteen years if a minor, or the double, if an adult.

The arrests finally began when the girl escaped. The trial was held, at last, in June in Avignon in the juvenile criminal court of Vaucluse. Now for those whose eyes are open, reading the articles about this trial in the regional paper la Provence arouses first incredulity then an ever stronger feeling of disgust, and even a sense of horror.

For what they exposed at this trial was a sort of children's game, or a story about boy-scouts, and not the torture of a young girl such as I described above. First, the psychiatrist, a caricature of a left-winger in his flowered shirt:

Rapists? They were merely experiencing their act as a "rite of passage" which was part of their "desire to feel they belonged to a group." Yes they were young and "intolerant of frustration" but, alas, not "prepared for the relationship with this desperate young girl." And so they "did not perceive the constraint of the circumstances" - groups of ten in a basement, in the light provided by their cell phones.

You can all appreciate the artistic minimalism of the "circumstances."

As for the girl - and here we find ourselves clenching our fists - the psychiatrist insinuates that during her ordeal she could have "felt a form of emotional pleasure". What about tomorrow? one judge asked eventually. It's all for the best, assured the psychiatrist, the rapists "do not present any risk of recidivism." Yet ten lines further on we read that during the trial, two of the principal suspects were "held for another reason."

The attitude of la Provence was surprising in that, having described the awful facts, it constantly edulcorated them. It went so far as to question, in a headline, what possibly could have been going on "in the minds of these Enfants Terribles." By way of a reminder, Les Enfants Terribles, a dream-like feminine film by Jean Cocteau from 1950 bears as much resemblance to the gang rape in Carpentras as a children's matinée bears to the carnage of Verdun.

In the end, the verdict was "moderate", rejoices the paper. And then we learn, through twisted words, that a handful of the perpetrators will perhaps spend two or three years in prison, but it's not sure, considering the clever mixing of suspended sentences with jail terms.

At this point in the account, permit me a criminologist's comment - but above all, a grave observation - this trial stinks heavily of fear and intimidation.

Unfortunately, every person involved - not just the paper and its reporter - was very careful not to ruffle any of the accused whose families were massively present in the room. Everyone watched his step. Everyone walked on eggshells. Everyone took the trouble to speak in pleasant periphrases and delicate euphemisms. True, a second expert (another psychiatrist) admitted that he "had not had a prolonged conversation with the accused" but nevertheless assured the court that they were "rather nice people" whose behavior is a "great mystery".

But there is something worse than this "Sicilian" atmosphere, so to speak. And this second mystery explains why - dumbfounded - I waited the entire summer before writing this article. I was in fact waiting for an outraged response, a collective cry of horror from feminists. But there was nothing, just a silence of death. A young girl repeatedly raped. Forced into prostitution. And as an extra bonus, what the defense attorneys have to say about her is horrible. A sample:

"Instead of speaking with words, it is in connection with sex that she goes towards the other. She is not seeking pleasure; she expresses herself with her ass." (sic)

Note: FYI here's the French version of the above: "Au lieu de parler avec des mots, c'est dans la relation avec le sexe qu'elle va vers l'autre. Ce n'est pas une recherche de plaisirs; elle s'exprime avec son cul."

This unbroken silence, this absolute silence from the feminists who are admitting, with heads bowed, that a women gang-raped "expresses herself with her ass."

Where is Caroline Fourest, said to be so strongly attached to women's causes? Where are the Chiennes de garde, who in this case have no voice and no fangs? And for its part, Osez le féminism! frankly did not dare very much.

Note: Caroline Fourest is an activist for homosexual and feminist causes. Together with her "partner" Fiammetta Venner (photo below of the pair), she founded an organization called ProChoix (Pro-Choice). See French Wikipedia for information on Fourest.


Chiennes de garde ("watchdogs", using the feminine form of "dog") is a feminist association that has the following manifesto as its guiding principle:

"We live in a democracy. Rights are free, but not all arguments are legitimate. Any woman who exposes herself, affirms herself, displays herself runs the risk of being called a 'whore'; if she is successful she is often suspected of having 'slept' with someone. Every visible woman is judged on her appearance and labeled: mother, good friend, all-purpose maid, lesbian, whore, etc…

Enough!

We, the Watchdogs, show our fangs. To address a sexist insult to a public woman (i.e., a prostitute), is to insult all women. We are committed to giving our support to public women who are attacked as women. We affirm freedom of action and choice for all women. We, the Watchdogs, maintain a precious value: the dignity of women. A word to the wise…"

Osez le féminisme! (Dare to be a feminist!) is another feminist association that began as a journal created by the planned parenthood movement, the Socialist Party and the UNEF, a students' union.

Xavier Raufer concludes:

Why this silence? Is it possible that radical chic feminism evaporates at the entrance of a hot ghetto? And how would these vanishing militants have reacted if, instead of "Lascars", the gang rape had implicated members of some right-wing party?

We hope there will be a response. Because, with such terrible brutality, any silence resonates as a crushing acceptance.

Note: Despite the genuine concern of Xavier Raufer for the deplorable actions of the court and the feminists, he did not once mention race or specific ethnicity. He only used the term "Lascars", a reference to a television series about ghetto youth and, I suppose, a kind of code word for Africans and Maghrebins. We can assume the girl was white (see photo below).

He has done a good job of denouncing the intimidation and fear that drove the French justice system to commit an outrageous injustice. But why did he not state the obvious - that crimes such as this one were extremely rare before the massive immigration policies that started in 1974, and that are now reaping the whirlwind.

According to Wikipedia, Raufer's real name is Christian de Bongain, and he has worked in the past for MSM publications such as l'Express and Le Figaro. In the early 80's he was a consultant to François Mitterand. He has been criticized for his methods that his opponents say are not scientifically founded, for his hasty judgments regarding the seriousness of crime in the ghetto, and for his connections to the "extreme Right."

Wikipedia:

In his book Les Nouveaux dangers planétaires (2010), Xavier Raufer denounces what he calls the "Byzantium Syndrome", a reference to the conquest of Constantinople on May 29, 1453, by Mohammed II, the Ottoman sultan. As the siege drew to a close, a council met in Constantinople where a stellium of theologians discussed the sex of angels. In this work, Raufer draws a parallel with the current situation in which people discuss what he believes are innocuous subjects, instead of facing the new planetary dangers (terrorism, criminality, among others).

I don't know why Raufer (below) did not mention race and ethnicity in his essay. He probably has his reasons. I hope they are good ones.


Addendum: I was about to post when I decided to look for more comments by the psychiatrists. I am taking them as I find them from articles in La Provence. Dr. René Pandelon said the following, according to La Provence, June 23:

"They (the rapists) are normal with unremarkable histories, who found themselves confronted with an extraordinary situation that turned everything topsy turvy. (In a society where you go) from repressed sexuality to hypersexuality, they were not prepared for the relationship with this desperate young girl."

"In this sexuality, what is important is not the sexual act but the relation with other members of the group. I must exhibit myself to show others what I am capable of. These young people are not searching for pleasure but for participation in a common act. It's an initiation ritual which is not a new phenomenon."

Note: It may not be new but it is barbaric. He does not point that out. He goes on and talks about himself:

"Its true that there are better types of initiation. My first arousal, I felt it when I gave holy water to a young girl who was entering a church. (He then goes back to the topic of the crime:) In this sexual practice, the object of sexuality is not the connection with the girl but the relation with the other boys, a little like 'La Guerre des boutons': I can do it, I have a larger penis, or I can pee further…"

Notice how he deviously connects sex with going to church. La Guerre des boutons is a famous French movie about children.

"They did not perceive the constraints of the circumstances. For them the encounter took place without threats, without violence. She was not attached. They did not feel the psychic constraints or the victim's situation of profound distress from her lack of a sense of otherness… This young girl was looking for love, for affection."

Note: Her "lack of a sense of otherness" is not clear. He seems to be saying that because she did not have a "significant other" she sought out the company of a gang of rapists.

She could not oppose the will of the group and could at times feel overwhelmed by the situation and feel a form of pleasurable affection. For them, she was reduced to the level of an easy girl: they jumped at the opportunity."

Again from La Provence:

Attorney El Bouroumi:

The encounter was terrifying for these sexually inexperienced young men "who live with families who do not talk about love, and even less about sex."

Attorney Tassy:

There is a "terrible sickness of life" in this adolescent girl in flight continued attorney Tassy, who stigmatized the girl for sexuality without affection.

Finally some observations from La Provence:

When they began making arrests in Carpentras, the ghetto of Pous du plan, home to the attackers, went up in arms. "It was unthinkable", said one teacher. For the families, for the residents of the project, the accused boys, all from large families, could not have done "that". Yes, they spend the day roaming around, riding without a helmet and provoking the police. But never would they participate in such deeds. In these families, there is no talk about sexuality, and these boys, raised by protective, permissive parents, appear to lead two different lives. Within the family, they are nice, helpful, and respectful. (…) Outside it is not the same thing. At school they all have trouble accepting authority. And neighborhood solidarity is more important than all the rest. They all agree that "with a girl from our country, it wouldn't happen like that" and that "never would they have allowed one of their sisters to be in this girl's situation."

By the time the trial took place, six years after the crime, most of the attackers were married with children. They admitted to the mistakes of their youth, but they all insisted that the girl had consented.

Below, the only picture of the victim with her lawyer who was seriously outmaneuvered by the plethora of vindictive defense attorneys. She certainly appears to be white.

Final thought: Because France has accepted these millions upon millions of aliens into their territory, it is inevitable that rapes will increase exponentially. It is therefore to be expected that rape will no longer be considered as a crime, but as a playful act by inexperienced kids performed on infidel women.