France confronted by Islam - Part 8

In this final section Ayméric Chauprade (above) adds several conditions to his proposals, narrowing down the enemy to one type of Islam, insisting on the need for a Palestinian State and for alliances with "moderate" Sunnis. But he also exposes the truth about the discrepancy in the number of dead Palestinians compared to dead Israelis. And finally he repeats that France can only recover her identity by freeing herself from United States domination.

Parts 1-4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

A foreign policy in keeping with our internal priorities

Faced with the French identity crisis, our foreign policy decisions will prove determining. An alliance with Russia, the only great European power to openly and firmly assert its Christian civilization, ought to be an obvious choice to any patriot. As should an entente with Shiism and all Middle Eastern minorities confronted with the awakening of the Sunni volcano as it attempts obsessively to reconstitute the Umma in a world Caliphate seeking to expand to the detriment of the other civilizations. I am, moreover, convinced that the United States and Israel will eventually reach an agreement with Iran (including Iran as a nuclear power, as Sunni Pakistan is) and with Shia-dominant Iraq. We must of course also cooperate with the moderate Sunni monarchies of the Arab world, those who do not finance jihad, like Morocco, the UAE, or Kuwait. The war is not against Sunni Islam, it is against the Sunni extremism that is eating away an important part of Sunni Islam, and this nuance is essential because this war must be waged side by side with all moderate Sunni Muslims.

Note: I cannot comment with any authority on his notion of cooperation with "moderate" Sunnis. Nor do I have any knowledge of what an American-Israeli agreement with Iran would mean, except that Iran's nuclear capabilities, assuming they exist, could be used against Sunni extremists, if necessary. Finally what is the relevance of Pakistan here? It all seems very theoretical.

Regarding Israel, France must not yield to the emotional trap, but preserve a balanced policy. When one defends a world based on sovereignty, one also defends the sovereignty of Israel and its right to security. It is nonetheless obvious that the security of Israel can only derive from a fair solution for the Palestinians, which would impose on Israel (as Sharon suggested at the end of his life) the obligation to make painful concessions in the West Bank, hence to dismantle its colonies.

Note: Again, he is very theoretical. Israel has made many concessions to the Palestinians including several offers for a Palestinian State. Israel's very painful disengagement from Gaza in 2005 is the topic of a long Wikipedia page. What makes Chauprade (or anybody else) think that a Palestinian State would appease the Muslims? That they would suddenly stop their attacks and live peacefully side by side with Israelis? Isn't this as quixotic as the French notion of "vivre-ensemble" (living together)?

Below, from Ynet, the last Israeli home demolished as Israel ends the disengagement from Gaza, 2005.

The emotion generated by the drama of the Palestinians is overwhelming some of us, causing us to lose a sense of proportion and to forget the profound causes of the conflict. One argument you hear all the time is that all of this is unjust because Israelis only have fifty (military) deaths while the Palestinians mourn two thousand (essentially civilians). To which I respond with the principle of political responsibility. If I were French Defense Minister and my country were attacked by rockets, then yes I would do everything to keep the French death toll at zero and to inflict the maximum number of losses on my enemy. But then the question arises: Why are Palestinian deaths essentially civilian? Answer: Hamas' combatants emerge from tunnels that they dig in order to shoot rockets on Israel from buildings where families live, then they go back and hide in the tunnels. Israeli aviation and artillery respond, therefore, on the places where the rocket fire originated, namely, the apartment buildings where civilians, whom Hamas has chosen not to protect, reside. So it is clear that Hamas knowingly chooses to sacrifice Palestinian civilians and they do this because they are waging a world war of information based on images and emotions.

A politician worthy of the name, places intelligence ahead of emotion, just as analysis must precede communication, not the contrary. Yes the images of dismembered Palestinian children make me sick. But since 2011, have they shown us images of Christian or Alaouite Syrians massacred by the jihadist rebels armed by Paris, London and Washington? Have they shown us images of Libyan civilians charred in their homes by the NATO airstrikes? Have they shown us images of civilians of Donetsk pulverized by Ukrainian artillery fire?

War is implacable. The Palestinians of Gaza have chosen to give power to a movement, Hamas, whose objective is not to construct a real Palestinian sovereign State next to Israel, but to destroy Israel. Whenever a people put into power a movement with no objective other than the harassment of a military superpower next door, only misfortune can be expected. It's terribly unjust for the civilians who perish, but bad choices cost dearly and we will soon pay dearly for ours if we persist in our soft-heartedness and our strategic errors.

France is at a crossroads. She must - all at the same time - become again a player for multipolar equilibrium by emancipating herself from the United States; support the emergence of a true European power independent of the United States and founded on respect for nations; and confront the identity challenge threatening her which is directly tied to the changing situation in the Middle East, whether one likes it or not. This implies the need for courage not only on the American question, but also on the question of Sunni extremism that is progressing here in France as it prevails in Arab countries one after the other. This courage cannot be expected from a ruling class in large part anesthetized by money from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Only a great political change will give back to the French their identity, their sovereignty, their influence on the world stage, and their honor. Count on me to participate in this great political change as I will fight with all my strength so that my children and my grand-children may live in a France inhabited by her centuries-old civilization.

Note: As I post, a major shake-up has occurred in France with the resignation of François Hollande's cabinet of ministers, and the refusal of some of the ministers to work in whatever new cabinet he manages to put together. Also, Hollande cut a pathetic and dishonorable figure at the August 25th commemoration of the Liberation, speaking unduly at length beneath the pouring rain (causing jokes about the "ice bucket" president) and making numerous faux pas - one of which was "patrie échouée" which translates "the defeated homeland" or "the homeland wrecked". I'm not sure what he meant to say, but at Twitter they are speaking of a "shipwreck".

I have not had time to read carefully the article from Le Figaro, but a post on the cabinet shake-up will follow as soon as possible.

Note: I suspect, but do not know for sure, that this sudden haste to jump ship stems directly from the pro-Palestinian riots, the massacres of Christians in Iraq, and the violence in Ukraine. Suddenly everybody knows something is wrong! They don't want to be associated with an economic collapse, a possible volcanic rise in street crime and riots, and the obvious takeover by the Islamic State of destabilized Arab countries. It's not impossible that Ayméric Chauprade's dissertation had something to do with this, although that may be a stretch.

(You probably also heard that Qatar bombed Libya.)

Below, François Hollande, incompetence incarnate, both victim and perpetrator of corruption, greed, ignorance and arrogance.

Final note: Regarding this impressive but still theoretical foreign policy proposal from Chauprade, I will take a cautious approach. First, Marine Le Pen has to become president. Second, Chauprade, who has been working closely with the Front National behind the scenes for a number of years, and who has also been adviser to Jean-Marie Le Pen, still has to prove himself in a real-life situation such as a ministerial post, and he may do that, but it cannot be before 2017. Third, he is very close to some Arab countries such as Morocco where he has been a foreign policy adviser. He seems to have inadvertently adopted a little bit of George Bush's idea of getting the "bad guys" and using the "good guys" as our allies. Chauprade sees the only danger to be Sunni fundamentalism, no other form of Islam. In fact, the other branches of Islam will be our allies, in his view.

So we must be cautious. French readers can read a critical article about him at Rue89. (You must be cautious about this article as well.)

France confronted by Islam - Part 7

Part 7 of an eight-part policy proposal by Aymeric Chauprade, Marine Le Pen's foreign policy adviser. See Parts 1-4 here, Part 5 here and Part 6 here.

Looking squarely at the Islamic problem in France

Let's not allow ourselves to be governed by ideological obsessions. Let's look at reality. History is largely the product of demographic dynamics. My political commitment is first founded on the desire to keep France in her civilization, French civilization itself being a component of European civilization. I defend the French nation, its 1500-year-old civilization just as I defend European civilization. France obviously needs profound economic reforms and probably moral reform, but she is threatened above all by the replacement of her historic population by a population in its majority African and Muslim. This is obvious, and no denial of reality can mask it. Ethnic Frenchmen are little by little being replaced and since assimilation only works for a part of this new non-European population (the part that was willing to assimilate), France is exposed by default to the perspective of no longer being, in one or two decades, what she has been from her origins, namely a nation of European roots and Christian culture. This phenomenon is not limited to France. Other countries of Western Europe are experiencing it and the United States also is seeing its WASP population become a minority.

Now, I am certain that there exists a majority of Frenchmen who do not want to see France lose her civilization and I am certain too that a political majority can be built before 2017 around this idea that Marine Le Pen represents better than anyone. There is no other credible solution than to build this majority with those who have already understood the link between the internal Islamic threat and the external Islamic threat.

From this point of view, the fate of the Christian minorities of the East, a projection into the future of what lies in store for the French in a France that has become predominantly Islamic, and the fate of the Jews of France more and more victims of insults if not violence, ought to help the French people to understand that the unity of France cannot be taken for granted and that great perils weigh on her.

The new antisemitism comes from a part of the Muslim community that associates the Jews with the politics of Israel. The recent pro-Palestinian demonstrations provided ample proof, on the one hand that the Palestinian cause has become an Islamist cause, on the other hand that anti-Zionism no longer even tries to distinguish itself from antisemitism (we even saw in these demonstrations signs referring to Mohamed Merah, the Toulouse killer). Of course, any lucid Frenchman is not fooled by the symmetrical game of the Jewish community, that has its own reasons for victimizing itself in order to sustain the policy of emigration to Israel. But exaggeration and exploitation do not in any way change the implacable reality that the teachers in our national education system have perceived for years now in the classwork of many immigrant pupils. An entire large segment of the French population of Arab/North African and Muslim origin is not only anti-Zionist, it is antisemitic.

Some reproach Marine Le Pen for having defended the Jewish Defense League. They did not understand her position. First of all, Marine Le Pen has always been on the side of freedoms. That was true during the controversy about Dieudonné and it's true today with regard to the JDL. She is not giving her approval to either Dieudonné or the JDL, rather she is on her guard against the inclination for interdicts that can open the way to any other interdict on any other pretext. When a JDL militant stabbed a police officer, the matter was covered up by the left and nobody demanded that the JDL be banned. Suddenly, because the JDL flexed its muscles against the pro-Palestinian militants (including numerous vandals), it must be banned? The truth is that the JDL is nothing more than the reflection of a self-defensive posture on the part of a community that feels less and less safe in France, as do millions of other Frenchmen who are attacked by thugs. That's the question we should be asking ourselves! Marine Le Pen spoke, once again, in favor of freedom and security, two central themes of her political platform.

Below, from August 1, 2014, Marine Le Pen explains the presence of the JDL in France. (There may be commercials.)


Marine Le Pen justifie à demi-mot l'existence... by ERTV

- Is the government justified in considering banning the JDL that we saw in recent weeks during the street demonstrations?

 - First I want to say that if there is a Jewish Defense League it is because there is a certain number of Jews who feel unsafe. They have the feeling that a new antisemitism is growing in France and that it is the result of ethnic confrontations. It's a reality. You have to say it, because if you don't say it, you are covering up a part of what is happening in France. Now, if the Jewish Defense League increases its violent actions, it has to be dissolved. But the State also has to assume its responsibilities and ensure the safety of our Jewish compatriots. I am not certain that the State can do this, I am even convinced of the opposite, and the clear, most striking proof of this is the way the State is incapable of maintaining order when there is the slightest demonstration. Once again we saw that the police had been ordered not to intervene and to allow gangs to vandalize, burn and assault; gangs who are now accustomed to using the streets of France as their playground. 

Chauprade goes on:

Barring a political change of great magnitude, French Jews can be concerned about their future in France as neither the UMP nor the PS constitute a rampart of protection. Besides being bought out by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, our leaders of the UMP and the PS have cynically chosen the demographic weight of the Muslim voters. This explains the facility with which the Muslim community takes what it wants (large mosques, multiple violations of laïcité…) from the UMP and PS municipalities. It also explains the propagation of the mandatory "pro-Palestinian" line of thought in the main-stream media. These cowardly politicians of the UMPS, who always obeyed the one who spoke the loudest, thought at one time that "the Jews were powerful" and closed their eyes to the fate of Palestinian children, but today first they sense the growing isolation of Israel, second they can almost "touch" the money from the Gulf, and third they measure the importance of their Muslim clients in France, so they can call themselves pro-Palestinian, without running much of a risk. But I will not be among those who yield to the emotional strings pulled in the information war, used in the past against Iraq or Serbia to justify the bombings of Baghdad and Belgrade, and mobilized today against Russia with regard to Ukraine as they are against Israel with regard to the Palestinians. A Frenchman must keep his head and learn how to analyze the causes and underpinnings of a war by detaching himself from the horrible images he sees. It is because we aspire to govern both responsibly and courageously that we must learn to free ourselves from the double trap of immediacy and of emotions.

Our country has welcomed millions of Muslims. Some will stay, others will have to leave. This great separation between those destined to stay and those who will have to leave our land will revolve around international issues. It's the reason why, more than ever, a political program of national recovery must offer us clear and coherent international choices.

Note: It is rare for a prominent analyst to talk about Muslims leaving the country. Chauprade says they will have to leave. Can we assume that Marine Le Pen would institute a policy of "assimilate or leave"? And what will happen if they refuse to assimilate and refuse to leave as well? He goes on:

Those Sunni Muslims who assimilate will choose to integrate themselves into the heritage of Christian France with separation of Church and State and to accept the fact that their Jewish compatriots love Israel as they themselves love the land of their ancestors: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia.

Note: Is this just another pipe dream, comparable to any that Woodrow Wilson, with his League of Nations or George Bush, with his Democracy for Iraq, entertained, or is it a realistic possibility? He does not suggest that Muslims convert, but that they accept to live under laws that are not in keeping with sharia. How many would? 

The others (they are numerous) who choose the Umma instead of France, who veil their wives and daughters, who wear the salafist beard, will not have any desire to be or to remain French. The energetic refusal of Islamization (by refusing to build mosques and by rejecting the integration of Islamic regulations into our own customs), as well as a profound reform in the accessibility of welfare will be the two strong political choices that will create the conditions for the repatriation of those who do not choose to love France.

Note: Like Marine Le Pen, he is advocating a "shape up or ship out" policy. Thirty or forty years ago it might have been this simple, but now… With Russia's help it might be possible, but how could it be non-violent, considering the huge stake the Arab countries have in France and the new role played by the U.S. as builder of Islamic States and destroyer of Christian populations?

On Obama's reaction to Islamic terrorism see Pamela Geller.

Personally, I do not believe in zero immigration. Neither practically, nor morally. Not practically because the cultural influence of France includes the possibility for serious students all over the world to pursue studies of French in France. Not morally because I do not see on what basis we should be condemned to take in those who poison our lives and turn away those who might contribute to France. I believe, on the contrary, in the reversal of the "bad" migratory waves. And I believe that the solution includes the establishment of the right of blood, the abolition of family reunification laws, a drastic reduction in asylum (with civilizational preferences, such as the Christians of Iraq or the Copts of Egypt…) and an immigration policy of choice (choosing those who contribute to France).

Note: Since this section was so long, I'm letting it go without further comment or relevant links. It poses as many questions as it answers. Chauprade's discourse is well-founded, rational, patriotic, almost inspirational, but at times quixotic. There are so many dangers Marine Le Pen will have to confront, not the least of which is hostility from the combined forces of the E.U., the U.S.A., and the many who hate her in her own country… Of course, none of this means anything if she is not elected in 2017.

Below, the Battle of Poitiers, led by Charles Martel, with a passage from Christian History. It took superhuman physical force to defeat the Saracens then. Today it is much more difficult because they are entrenched in the Western countries, and protected by the illegitimate policies of superpowers. The real superpower - the pathetically misinformed people - are recoiling, refusing to avert the catastrophe that lies ahead.

The Franks, clothed in leather and steel, their fair hair streaming below their helmets, were armed with spears, battle-axes and great two-edged swords, and drawn up as a solid phalanx ranged shoulder to shoulder, shield to shield. “The men of the north stood motionless like a wall of ice,” writes the awestricken chronicler Isidore of Beja. All day long, as wave after wave of Muslim cavalry crashed against them, they hacked and slashed down men and horses until the road and surrounding fields were choked with corpses.

France confronted by Islam - Part 6

Here is Part 6 of the eight-part policy proposal by Aymeric Chauprade (photo below). See Part 5 here and Parts 1-4 here.

Know your enemy

I'm addressing those capable of looking reality in the face and who can, therefore, overcome their reflexes and ideological heritage. One of the great challenges of politics has to do with the capacity to adapt to changing circumstances in order to remain oneself. During the Cold War, I was anti-Communist, hence anti-Soviet and favorable to the alliance with the United States. Today I defend the independence of France and of Europe against the United States and consequently I regard Russia as a necessary strategic partner, insofar as it is defending the fundamentals of Christian civilization. When the Kings of France shifted their alliances (towards Austria under Louis XV), public opinion did not understand, so ingrained in the popular consciousness was the habit of hating an age-old enemy.

My political positions are not and will never be determined by my personal friendships, and I know even today that some of my pro-Palestinian friends will have trouble understanding them. I know all the Arab countries, I was even for a longtime a consultant for an Arab Kingdom, and I have never been to Israel. I have a personal history with the Arab world and the positions I endorse take a toll emotionally, but it's the duty of anyone who aspires to govern behind Marine Le Pen to think only of the higher interests of the country. For a true French patriot must be capable of prioritizing the dangers that threaten France, of refusing ideology and simplistic intellectual constructions that designate an imaginary globalist enemy against which we might have to lead a world-wide revolution. Israel is not the enemy of France. France today has but one veritable enemy: Sunni fundamentalism. It's true that Israel today still has close ties to the United States, but the U.S. is beginning to turn away and Israel is adopting a multipolar position, establishing strong relations with Russia, India, China. Therefore, unless he is ruled by obsessive antisemitism, a French patriot cannot seek to form, against Israel, an alliance that is both against nature and politically useless with the pro-Palestinian extreme-left, the scum in the suburban ghettos and the Islamists.

Some will object that Israel has done everything to create this situation that has led to the replacement of the original Palestinian nationalism by Hamas, all to reenforce the cohesion of the West around the Jewish State. It's possible (remember that Sheikh Yassin was in fact brought back to Palestine by the Israelis to be a counterweight to Arafat), but if this is the case, the strategy worked and the Europeans of the West now find themselves in the same boat as the Israelis. Consequently, I am not going to wait for my country to be repopulated by a radicalized Muslim majority bent on unleashing a Revolution against a nationless Capitalism! I have but one imperious priority - the French people, and my political combat does not revolve around the fight against Zionism!

Note: He is still reserved about his identity. Is he an ethnic Frenchman? His close ties with and deep knowledge of the Arab countries indicate he has much more than a passing acquaintance with the Middle East. References to his personal life are vague, but he implies he has lost friends because he is not anti-Israel.

His rejection (and Marine Le Pen's) of the United States is perfectly understandable, considering what we have become. I only wish he would point out that the U.S. today bears little resemblance to pre-1968 America. Many of the political issues are the same, but the unmistakable decline in the quality of education and popular culture and the concomitant prevalence of the anti-racist ideology, combined with leaders that are fundamentally anti-American and pro-Islam, have turned us into a country that more closely resembles Socialist France than the America that landed on the beaches of Normandy. It is not likely we will get our bearings in the near future, considering there is no strong committed opposition party here.

I have not had time to read all of his recent writings. Therefore, I don't know if he still espouses the notion that 9/11 was a deliberate attempt by Bush and Israel to trigger a war with the Muslims. In Part 1 he spoke of a "probable" collusion between two "deep states" - that of the U.S. and that of Saudi Arabia. Possibly he is trying to find a theory he is comfortable with.

Both Chauprade and Marine Le Pen are working assiduously towards an alliance with Russia and both denounce the hostility of the French media towards Vladimir Putin. There are numerous French-language article online about their efforts.

Note also that Chauprade never speaks of the Shiites, only the Sunnis. For him, apparently, the threat of Sunni Islam far outweighs the other variety. Yet was it not Hezbollah, a predominantly Shiite terrorist group, that bombed the Beirut barracks in 1983 killing 58 French paratroopers and over 200 U.S. Marines?

Below, Marine Le Pen in Russia.

France confronted by Islam - Part 5

Here is Part 5 of the eight-part article by Aymeric Chauprade. See Parts 1-4 here.

Coming face to face with the corruption of French politics and the French economy by Qatar and Saudi Arabia

The origin of this catastrophe, it can never be repeated often enough, is quite simply that beginning with the Sarkozy presidency, France placed its Arab policy completely in the hands of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and its diplomacy became, de facto, the primary sub-contractor of these two Islamist powers.

Libya was the war of sub-contracted Qatari interests par excellence. The calculation of the Western powers (United States and its aligned European forces) was as follows: add to Qatar (possessor of the world's second largest gas reserve, after Russia) the formidable gas potential of Libya, and crush in this way (in addition to American shale gas) the dependency of the European Union on Russian gas. Now there's a strange strategic vision: that of preferring, in the long term, to be dependent on "fundamentalist" gas rather than Russian gas!

Note: Those interested in the topic of Qatari natural gas and the great Qatari ambition to build a pipeline through Turkey, can consult this long article from Zero Hedge. I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but it seems to contain much relevant information.

Ever since the assassination of Qadhafi (October 20, 2011), backed by the pro-American West after the violation of promises made to Russia (to respect the no-fly zone and not to destroy the regime), the result of the Libyan operation was not long in coming. In early 2013, France would intervene militarily in Mali to stem the rapid advances by the friends of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and in July of that year, the U.N., Washington and the near-totality of Western countries decided to close their consulates and to evacuate their personnel.

Note: The above paragraph compresses into a few lines a world of information. Russia was severely critical of the murder of Qadhafi, and of its extraordinary brutality that was publicized world-wide for all to see. Mrs. Clinton supposedly laughed when she heard the news. The preposterous high hopes for a better Libya were soon in shambles. Qadhafi was an evil man who committed crimes, but there is always someone more evil. In Libya, the French were children playing with firearms - Sarkozy employed the services of the idiot intellectual impostor Bernard-Henri Lévy (above with his Islamist friends), whose addiction to military intervention, whose hatred of traditional France, whose preference for Islam are well-known, and who dragged the country into the ludicrous cesspit. BHL has had little to say about Libya of late. But as Chauprade says, the buck stops with Sarkozy:

One can never adequately reiterate the extent to which the Libyan chaos was first the responsibility of Sarkozy and at least as much that of Alain Juppé who was presented as an old "wise man". As early as 2011, I predicted that the pillage of weapons depots in Libya by Islamist tribes and militia would lead to a chaotic situation comparable to that in Iraq in 2003, when the Americans chose to destroy the Sunni structure of the Iraqi State that would constitute the embryo of what is today…the Islamic State.

As if that weren't enough for their incompetence and their arrogance, Sarkozy and Juppé added the Syrian error to the Libyan error, once again inspired (commanded?) by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Hollande (who apparently wanted a war of his own, like Sarkozy) had only to push deeper and deeper into his predecessors' errors. France was ahead of everyone in its desire to lead the West to war against Bachar el Assad, to the point of looking ridiculous, when the United States, more pragmatic, finally reached an agreement with the Russians.

Shaking hands with the Devil always has a high price. This submission of our diplomatic choices to Doha and Riyad is more than an external mistake, it is an internal crime. But this crime has an explanation: many key persons of the UMP and the PS have been bought by Gulf money, which explains why Sarkozy exempted Qatari investments from taxation and allowed Qatar to have a financial stake in several large strategic French companies. It also  explains why Qatar proposed to the former French president that he head a Qatari investment fund. Hollande himself did nothing to stop Qatar's policy of penetration; he simply redirected the cursor towards Saudi Arabia. It must be said that Saudi Arabia weighs in the balance-sheets of many large French enterprises (arms, construction, luxury items…) and is going to invest fifteen billion euros in le Grand Paris. I won't review here the extended catalog of the penetration of Saudi and Qatari money in our industries, our banks, our suburbs… Look at someone like Dominique de Villepin who today adopts a Gaullist tone in his criticism of Israel, but who was a fervent partisan of the intervention against Qadhafi probably because he is a licensed attorney of Qatar. Was he not the one who, having failed to become the UMP presidential candidate, tried to become the standard-bearer of the young Muslims in the ghettos?

Note: Le Grand Paris is a wildly anti-traditionalist project that aims to extend the boundaries of Paris almost to the Atlantic Ocean. This would make the suburban ghettos part of the Parisian municipality, presumably in order to correct "territorial inequalities". A long English-language article at France Today provides the basic information about this extravagant boondoggle that would sweep away parts of the ancient French countryside.

Note: Dominique de Villepin, born in 1953 in Rabat, Morocco, was Prime Minister from 2005-2007 under Jacques Chirac. He had been Foreign Minister during the debate on our plans to enter Iraq, and delivered an impassioned speech in the U.N. Security Council against intervention. Sympathetic to the Islamic countries he insisted the term "war against terror" was "improper". Would he have preferred "war against Islam"?

While our media feature cover stories on so-called "Russian agents" in France (…), they close their eyes to the millions of euros that pour into the UMP and Socialist parties and the institutes of international relations, almost all of which have become pro-Gulf, hence anti-Iran, anti-Syria, and anti-Russia, but favorable to the integration of Turkey (into the E.U.). In this context it is easier to understand the "one-way thinking" against Israel that is firmly established in these subsidized milieus. Israel, having lost the image war (and how could it win with pictures of Palestinian children blown to bits?), it is no longer very risky to criticize Israel on the nightly television news.

For the UMPS system and its subsidized "experts", the double alliance with the Muslims of France and money from the Gulf is a boon: a double jackpot because they pocket the money from the Gulf at the same time that they win the Muslim vote.

Note: If you did not read Soeren Kern's analysis of the French intervention in Libya when it was posted in March 2011, read it now. It is an accurate description of the blunderer Sarkozy and the man who knew too much about African immigration, Moammar Qadhafi (or Gaddafi, as many journalists spell it.) An excellent synopsis.

Top: A young anti-Qadhafi insurgent makes the victory sign as French aircraft bomb Qadhafi's tanks. The photo is from Le Figaro March 20, 2011.

Below, Libya today in the throes of extreme violence as the power struggle goes on. This time it seems we got our diplomatic personnel out (of Tripoli) in time. From Le Figaro July 27, 2014.

Note: Whatever France did in Benghazi, it was no match for our evil refusal to send help to our ambassadors who were begging for assistance and who paid with their lives the haughty indifference of both Obama and Mrs. Clinton who, besides the issue of not sending assistance, could not admit that the peaceful democratic revolutionaries they supported were really ferocious barbarians of the most unappeasable sort. 

On lack of adequate protection for our people in Benghazi see New Media Journal. There is much online about this act of treason and incompetence.

Below, the American Embassy in Benghazi in September 2012.

Slow posting until September 2

Except for the policy statement by Aymeric Chauprade in my preceding post, that I will continue to work on, there will be little or no posting until after Labor Day. So much has happened in the past twenty-two months, that a pause is necessary, both to get my mind off of blogging and to catch up on a number of things - news about the United States, for example, that I ignore for lack of time, and news of jihad in other countries - Sweden for example, where I have heard they believe a major attack is imminent. But there are always rumors. We never really know until it happens.

You can of course continue to send comments and links to articles of interest. I will break the pause if something of major importance happens.

Above, a more serene, almost other-worldly, image of France from painter Georges Seurat, who long before pixels used tiny points of color to achieve a magical effect. The technique became known as "pointillisme"and we can only wonder at what he would have done had he lived. Wikipedia tells of his tragically short life, and the fate that befell his children.

The celebrated painting is entitled Sunday afternoon on the Island of la Grande Jatte and resides at the Art Institute of Chicago.

France confronted by Islam

Here are the first four (slightly condensed) of eight sections from a policy proposal entitled France confronted by the Islamic question: credible choices for a French future, posted on August 11, 2014 by Aymeric Chauprade, foreign affairs counselor for Marine Le Pen, political scientist by profession, elected European deputy from Île-de-France on the Front National ticket, in May 2014.

There is a Wikipedia page in English for those interested in Chauprade's career.

In a brief introduction he reviews the end of the age of Arab nationalism, modernization and secularization in countries with Sunni leaders such as Nasser, Saddam Hussein, Hafez el Assad, authoritarians interested in development and in holding back the fanatical Sunni element. He expands on this in the first section:

Acknowledging the disappearance of Arab nationalism

The days of Arab nationalism have come and gone. Eroded by the corruption of its own elites, voluntarily devastated by American policy (an enemy of oil-producing nationalism) as much as by the enormous strategic error of Israel with which it could have reached an understanding to assure both the existence of a Palestinian State and the security of the Jewish State, Arab nationalism has signed its death certificate.

Note: He doesn't say what Israel's "enormous error" was. But it could not have been that a Palestinian State was never offered to the Arabs.

In September 2001, the probable collusion between a part of the American deep state and the Saudi deep state (the intelligence services), which was a sort of paroxystic outcome of a monstrous alliance born during the Afghan war with the Soviets, generated a planetary seismic wave. Sunni fundamentalism was unleashed while the United States, taking advantage of the "war against terrorism" attempted to oppose the utopia of a unipolar plan against the evidence of a multipolar world.

Note: A long article at Bill Moyers' website discusses the concept of "deep state", a type of conspiracy theory that assumes the State is not run by the elected officials but by the "deciders", those murky behind-the-scenes agents, bankers, lobbyists, who bend a country into the direction they want it to go no matter who is officially running the government. But is this really something new? And aren't the deciders for the most part progressives? George Soros and Bill Gates, to name just two who may be regarded as deciders, are Democrats. Of course, Chauprade is certainly tacitly alluding to the "neo-cons", the great nation builders who forced on the public, and presumably on George Bush, the notion that democracy was a universally desirable, necessary and inevitable system. But the "neo-cons" were for the most part former leftists who had given up the dream of Communism, only to replace it with democracy.

Partisans of American policy applauded in succession the war in Afghanistan against the Talibans that Washington, Islamabad and Riyad had created, the destruction of the regime of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, the Rose and Orange Revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine in order to counteract a Russia reborn thanks to Vladimir Putin, or even the political isolation of Tehran on the pretext of a possible Iranian bomb.

Note: He then runs through the regime changes of the phony "Arab Spring".

This entire deadly enterprise of throats slit, decapitations, rapes of young Christian or Shia virgins, summary executions, prisoners buried alive, macabre videos posted at YouTube that are downloaded tens of thousands of times in our suburban ghettos, all of that we owe to our "magnificent allies", our new friends in the Middle East, bloated with petrodollars: Qatar and Saudi Arabia.


The record of Sarkozy and Hollande in the Middle East: Islamist chaos and crimes against humanity.

The last time our leaders showed a little common sense in the Middle East was in 2003 when Chirac refused to become involved in the American war in Iraq. Of course, our policy then was lagging behind History; of course, it clung to regimes that were nearing their end, but it was a policy of "the lesser evil" and that is already not so bad. At least our ambassadors, experts in Arab affairs at the time, before Sarkozy and Hollande replaced them with naive humanitarians if not cynical businessmen, at least these true ambassadors (…) were familiar with the complicated Middle East and anticipated the horrible ethnic carnage that was to occur inevitably in lieu and place of the old "secular" regimes.

We have the result of this madness before our eyes and the balance-sheet is not only that of Washington. No, it was not only Washington's fault as Sarkozy and Hollande (and Alain Juppé and Laurent Fabius as well) bear a very heavy responsibility in the ethnic genocides (Christians, Alaouites, Twelvers, Yazidis…) taking place today in Syria and Iraq just as they are directly responsible for the tribal massacres in Libya.

Note: Twelvers are Shia who believe in twelve imams. See Wikipedia.

Defending militarily the Christians of Iraq

In my view, through these choices Sarkozy and Hollande became accomplices of crimes against Humanity. At the very least this should disqualify them forever in the eyes of the French people.

Sarkozy more so than Hollande because, in the end, it was the UMP that broke most brutally with Charles de Gaulle's fundamentals of French foreign policy to align us with American, Qatari and Saudi foreign policy. But is Hollande any better, having sent in 2012 our army to attack the Syrian State, reviving the American ploy of weapons of mass destruction as an excuse? And now he has nothing to offer the Christians of Iraq in the throes of the Islamic State but some food packages?

We must help the Christians to remain in their homeland, to defend their villages, their churches, for they were the first in the Land of the East. I therefore support without reservation the American military strikes against the Islamic State and I affirm that it is in the interests and for the honor of France to join in these airstrikes. I am the first one to oppose the insane policy of the United States in Ukraine; I also know how to refuse a systematic line of thought, and am able to state that the Americans did the right thing by helping the Iraqi government.

Note: He goes on to say that this is not enough, that the French, having waged wars in Afghanistan, Libya, etc… for nothing, cannot content themselves with food packages.

Of course, I adhere strongly to the essential principle of non-intervention. But I also believe in the principle of civilizational solidarity. France still is, in my view, the eldest daughter of the Church, who helped the Christians in Lebanon in 1860, and those Christians are my brothers. It is, moreover, this principle that leads me to be critical of De Gaulle's unjust treatment of the Harkis, who had fought for France. I defend realpolitik, but never against the honor of France. France is a person, she has honor, not only interests. It is therefore this principle of civilizational solidarity that can, in exceptional cases, justify intervention.

Note: He then repeats the need to help the Christians, and points out that the vice-president of the Front National, Louis Aliot agrees. He laments the fact that Aliot's words were "deformed" by the media, giving the impression he did not care about the Christians.

Harkis were North Africans who fought for France in the Algerian War. 

This is therefore my position, that I affirm and for which I assume responsibility, namely that France ought to be a part of the American airstrikes, to support the regular Shiite army and the Kurdish Pershmergas in their fight against the Islamic State.

Breaking the Caliphate and eliminating jihadists with French citizenship

There is an essential point in the destruction of the Caliphate: it has mutated from a regional to a world Caliphate. The Caliph proclaimed himself world Caliph and obtained the support of several radical imams influential in the world of Sunni Islam, including one in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world. The risk of propagation is obvious and the Americans have understood this. We must, imperatively, crush under a rain of fire these madmen who mutilate women, selling them as slaves on the market of Mosul, satiating through them their criminal instincts and inundating the world with their macabre videos. Vladimir Putin had words, as brutal as they were sensible, about these Islamists that the Russians fought in Chechnya (while the American helped them), and who massacred dozens of children in Beslan. "We must shove the terrorists under a pile of shit." It wasn't very politically correct but it's the best policy when confronted with Islamism.

Note: He has gone much further than any member of the Front National that I know of in advocating justified violence against people who cannot be civilized.

And this policy must not stop there. We know that almost one thousand jihadists with French nationality have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq and that many of them have joined the Islamic Caliphate. We must not consider them as wayward but as enemies who will soon return to France, armed with their military experience, their minds freed from any limitation after the crimes they commit (rapes, torture, decapitation). We must eliminate them in situ and this should be the role of our special services immediately. We cannot run the risk of waiting for them to return. Arrested and imprisoned in France they will be powerful motors of conversion to Islam in the prisons, hence an additional factor in the propagation of Islamic fundamentalism in our country. It is the responsibility of every European nation to eliminate its jihadist nationals before they return.

Note: I will be adding the rest of the article in the days to come. 

Above, Al-Qaeda fighters in the North African desert.

Below, the map shows the major areas of influence of al-Qaeda. France, in its entirety is included, as are most European countries with open borders that promoted the massive immigration of Muslims, guided by the dream of Eurabia, the spiritual vacuum left by the rejection of hated Christianity, and the delusion that an alliance with the Muslims would provide the "counterweight" to the overweening influence of the United States. 

And now, we all end up in the same boat - fighting the jihadists whom we funded, housed, educated, medicated, absolved of heinous crimes, to whom we granted instantaneous citizenship, and the Legion of Honor, turning away from the truth about Fort Hood and Toulouse, and even groveling to the point of saying that 9/11 was the work of Mossad, or the CIA. So far they haven't blamed the Front National or the National Rifle Association, but maybe that will come...

Proposals for concrete solutions

If you read French you should study this long but thorough set of proposals from Aymeric Chauprade, Marine Le Pen's advisor on foreign affairs. In an effort to find answers to the terrifying resurgence of Islam and to the potential collapse of France, he delineates the essential features of the major problems and proposes concrete solutions.

I hope to have a translation, either full or abridged, posted soon. Christine Tasin, at Résistance Républicaine, has taken the trouble to work out a condensation of his proposals, and I may use her resume as a basis for my post.

This is an important effort from Chauprade whom I have distrusted in the past because of his belief that 9/11 was an "inside job" and his theory that Americans have some kind of "obsession" over Pearl Harbor, as if we were hallucinating on September 11 that we were being attacked as we had been on December 7, 1941. I don't know if he has modified his views, but he has been excellent on the topic of Ukraine, and this latest article, in which he does not shirk from the possibility of using force or deportation in the fight against Islam, is worth perusing.

Below, Aymeric Chauprade with Marine Le Pen.

Geert Wilders warns of Hamas

Here is Geert Wilders' "warning to Israel", a video that was scheduled for an earlier appearance on the Internet, but postponed due to the crash in Ukraine of the Malaysian airliner.

Captive women

You have no doubt all seen the photo of Iraqi women, probably Christians, being led away to prison, or slavery. Vladtepes posted a short article translated from another article at a French-language Tunisian site. 

GoV informative as always

Just a note - I've been browsing through Gates of Vienna where there are many articles of great importance, including another English version of Christine Tasin's most recent video on the Belfort verdict, along with numerous comments from readers who support her and who see nothing wrong with the incriminating word "saloperie".

The verdict in Belfort

In the video above Christine Tasin explains the consequences of the verdict in Belfort that found her guilty of inciting to hatred for calling Islam "filth" (the French term she uses is "saloperie"). The court deemed that her remark was "liable to incur the rejection of Muslims by designating them as a danger to France."

There is in France at least one Islamic court, the court of Belfort. The judges of Belfort have decided to apply sharia law in France. They have just decided to apply article 22 of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, namely, that freedom of expression is guaranteed within the limits of sharia. The judges of Belfort have just sentenced me to a three thousand euro fine, half of which is suspended, for having said that Islam is "filth". It's obvious that they are restoring the crime of blasphemy. Better yet they are restoring the crime of sacrilege that was last used in France under Charles X. We are in an incredible regression, an incredible barbarity, linked to Islam. It must be repeated that anything that concerns Islam has such consequences. Today anybody can call Christianity a piece of filth, or Buddhism, nobody will be sent before a judge. In France no one can say that Islam is a piece of filth. Thirteen years ago Houellebecq was acquitted after saying that Islam was the most idiotic religion. In thirteen years we have regressed, here we are back in the time of Mohammed. All that, at the very moment when they are selling Christian women in Iraq in the name of Islam. They are sold as slaves in the name of Islam. And they condemn me for saying that Islam is filth. All that, at the very moment when the Islamists of Boko Haram kidnap young girls and marry them off by force in the name of Islam. And they want to forbid me from calling Islam filth. The reality of the facts shows that Islam is in truth a gigantic piece of filth. Who could doubt it from the examples I have just cited and Heaven knows, there are legions of such examples. In the name of Islam they slit throats, in the name of Islam they kill. It seems that the Muslim associations, instead of prosecuting me, should fight so that Islam is not all of that rather than forbidding me from expressing my concern, my danger and my refusal of that barbarity. Of course, I will appeal. We cannot accept, in France, being condemned for saying that Islam is filth. That would mean that this court decision would set a precedent and freedom of expression would be dead for everybody in this country.

Note: She ends with a plea for donations.

One reader at Délit d'Images, where the video is posted takes issue with her method. He asks:

"Why be vulgar and insulting?"

He then goes on to enumerate at length the realities of Islam that make it totally incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and concludes:

"Our leaders one day will have to render accounts to the French people for having allowed this ideology to spread. And they will be judged as traitors to the Nation and to the Republic.

The terms of Article 1 of the Constitution of 1958 state that France is a secular ("laïque") Republic. In 2004, the Constitutional Council defined precisely the meaning of this Article by affirming that its terms forbid anyone to exploit his religious beliefs in order to exempt himself from the common rules governing the relations between public and private collectivities."

The author of this long comment was suggesting to Christine Tasin that she should have and could have used a better argument than the word "saloperie" to condemn Islam. However, she certainly knew what she was doing and in using an insulting word she must have known she would be prosecuted. She also must have known, or suspected, that the verdict would help to expose the extent to which the courts are beholden to the Muslim population of France.

A Muslim website Saphir News is pleased with the verdict:

The militant woman of the extreme right was not sent to prison, but she has decided to appeal the verdict, her lawyer deeming her remark to be "hostile to Islam and not to Muslims." For her part, Christine Tasin made it known at her website that the Belfort court is an "Islamic court" and that the judges "applied sharia law" "under pressure from Islam and its most determined militants."

Note: Christine Tasin is not of the "extreme right", but was originally a leftist, and is still an active feminist. However, her support for the Front National and her efforts to fight Islam automatically place her in the camp of the extremists, at least in the eyes of Muslims and other leftists.

We are eager for the "sharia law" of the French Republic to be even more severe against unrepentant Islamophobia. Far from withdrawing her comments, she is sticking to them: Islam is a "gigantic piece of filth", admitting again and always that she wishes to see hatred of Islam and its faithful emerge in the light of day in France.

While I was at Saphir News I read another article on the verdict handed down on April 10 against writer Renaud Camus, not at all known for vulgarity or insulting slurs, who published a book entitled The Great Replacement on the effects of massive immigration.  He was slapped with a fine of four thousand euros for the remarks he made in December 2010 at the Assises internationales sur l'Islamisation, a meeting of writers and other concerned persons, many of them bloggers and leaders of patriotic associations, gathered for the purpose of discussing the danger of Islam in Europe:

The writer, known for his theory of the "great replacement", a vast fraud that claims that immigration is chasing out of France the "autochthon" (white, Christian) population, had declared that the foreign "thugs" were in reality "soldiers" who were participating in a war of conquest of Europe by Islam. For him, there exists a secret plan of a "great replacement of the people" through the organization of "white flight".

The 17th chamber of the criminal court of Paris deemed his declarations constituted "a very violent stigmatization of Muslims, presented as "thugs", "soldiers", "the armed hands of conquest, or even as "colonizers" trying to "make life impossible for the natives, "to force them to flee, to leave the territory, or worse, to submit."

At the same time as the verdict against Camus was announced, another writer Luc Roche was also fined two thousand euros, and ordered to pay five hundred euros in damages and five hundred euros in court fees to MRAP, the anti-racist association that had initiated the lawsuit:

His crime was saying that "dhimmi workers, i.e. non-Muslims, more and more resembled modern slaves working to fulfill the needs of the European Umma, a result of waves of migrants…"

Neither Camus nor Roche said anything insulting. They were analyzing the situation with the help of metaphors and other analogies. This did not prevent them from being fined, but there was no prison sentence. It is a safe bet that even if Christine Tasin had been more cautious in her choice of words, she would have still ended up in the court of Belfort, before terminally indoctrinated judges.

Anyone who doubts that Christianity has been the butt of vulgar humor has only to turn to the article at Riposte Laïque by Caroline Alamachère, and scroll down to the end. Three not-very-funny cartoons depict the clergy as scatophile, barely a cut above bacteria. The author states:

One century ago, it was permitted, even encouraged, to make fun of the Catholic religion, as the drawings below prove. Here is undeniable proof of the terrifying regression of our country in terms of liberties, of the absolute disrespect for the laws gained at the price of the death of the Ancien Regime. The people were supposed to gain liberties because it was engraved in the marble of France, the country that had once lighted the way for the rest of the world, but in Belfort, freedom of expression has just been buried in the dirtiest way - with the crime of blasphemy, no less!

Christine Tasin convicted

Christine Tasin, founder of Résistance Républicaine, co-founder of Riposte Laïque, has been found guilty what amounts to "Islamophobia", sentenced to a three-month suspended sentence and fined three thousand euros. You can read the story in English at Diversity Macht Frei a website administered by Cheradenine Zakalwe, who used to run Islam versus Europe. I don't know if he now has two sites, or if he is phasing out one in favor of the other. Diversity Macht Frei has a wealth of information about France and other countries. If you don't know about the site (which you can view in various formats), please make a note and visit often. There's much to read.

I will post additional information on this latest verdict from the government-controlled French Justice system. Christine Tasin may have used a strong word to describe Islam: saloperie, which means "filthy thing", but her conviction opens up the possibility that blasphemy will once again be criminalized. If the crime of blasphemy is reactivated you can be almost certain it will only apply to Islam, for though many attempts have been made by Catholic activists such as Bernard Antony to prosecute actions and words injurious to Christianity, such cases are usually thrown out of court before there is even a proper hearing.

Of what use would it be to criminalize blasphemy in a country where Islam is all-powerful, if not yet predominant, except to prosecute the "infidel"?

But France abolished blasphemy laws after the Revolution. A secular State, neutral in matters of religion, theoretically would not consider blasphemy a crime. However, inciting to hatred is a crime, and that was the basis for the court's decision. Here are short passages from Wikipedia on French law:

The hate speech laws in France are matters of both civil law and criminal law. Those laws protect individuals and groups from being defamed or insulted because they belong or do not belong, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or because they have a handicap. The laws forbid any communication which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, anyone because of his belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or because he or she has a handicap.

France abolished the offence of blasphemy in 1791; but the offence persists in the regions of Alsace and Moselle as Articles 166 and 167 of the local penal code. The Articles persist as a holdover from the German criminal code of 1871. Validated by La loi du 17 Octobre 1919 and le Décret du 25 Novembre 1919, the Articles forbid public blasphemy against God. No convictions under Articles 166 and 167 have been registered.

At any rate no freedom of speech laws protected her. And her sentence was less severe than that handed down to Anne-Sophie Leclere who posted the photo of the baby monkey. But the potential repercussions are of concern, because at this juncture, French law meets Sharia law.

Update: August 11 - Here is the link to my post from 2013 that includes the video of Christine Tasin engaged in an argument with Muslims. In the course of the argument she uses the word "saloperie". 

Vivre-ensemble - France's great dream

It's difficult to find analyses of the situation in Iraq that expedite one's understanding of the disaster by calling things by their true names. More often than not, the so-called expert attempting to clarify starts out with good intentions and a realistic appraisal of the brutality of the Islamists, but ends, uncomfortably, on a note of conciliation, unable to bring himself to utter the heretical phrase "Islam and Christianity cannot live side by side", leaving the reader just as confused as when he started. Few dare to say the heresy because it is an offense to today's new religion: multiculturalism, the hidden agenda of which is predicated on the replacement of Christianity with Islam, just as it presupposes the replacement of white Europeans with people of color. Thus, "multiculturalism" is anything but multicultural.

Catholic writer, teacher and activist Bernard Antony, founder of the association Chrétienté-Solidarité, has posted an enlightening article critical of those who assume the Christians of Iraq should stay put - and be slaughtered?

On the fate of the refugees: an objective contradiction between the usual remarks by the Pope and those of the French episcopal delegation to Kurdistan.

Traveling to Kurdistan, which is hardly Iraqi at this point, and which is for the moment a territory at peace, cardinal Philippe Barbarin, bishop Michel Dubost and the prelate Pascal Gollnisch, director of l'Oeuvre d'Orient (a charity in the Middle East), commented on the future of the Christians of Iraq chased out of the conquered zones by the new Caliphate. Their comments were quite different from those normally expressed on this subject by Pope Francis.

For these French hierarchs, to welcome the Christians fleeing the salafist terror into other countries is not the solution. Notwithstanding the fact that for a long time, many have been assassinated and tortured, such as Faraj Raho, the bishop of Mosul, whose family we assisted in their search for a haven in Toulon.

Note: Already we can guess why Philippe Barbarin, archbishop of Lyon, primate of the Gauls, leader of the French Catholic Church, born in Rabat, Morocco, would not want to bring these refugees into France. Attached to Islam, good friends with Kamel Kabtane, the grand mufti of the great mosque of Lyon, Barbarin is a multiculturalist who participates in inter-religious dialogues with Jews and Muslims. This should not affect in any way his mission to serve, protect and help Christians, but perhaps he does not want the responsibility of bringing into France Christians who have been persecuted by Muslims. Could he be that petty, that groveling to his Muslim friends? I don't know.

Philippe Barbarin participated in a prayer inside a mosque in 2013. Review my post.

As for Pascal Gollnisch, he is the younger brother of Bruno Gollnisch, former vice-president of the Front National, and currently a deputy in the European Parliament.

These French Catholic leaders do not say that the Christians massacred were martyred for their faith in Christ, but according to them, Christians must be, even at the risk of their life, the upholders of the humanist ideal of living-together. So they should go back home as quickly as possible to "live-together" with the Muslims.

I should note, in passing, the convergence, if not the similarity, of the bishops' remarks with those of Louis Aliot, vice-president of the Front National. The cardinal, the bishop and the prelate who recently so warmly wished Muslims a happy ramadan, were careful not to point out that "living-together" includes, for Christians, the acceptance of a more or less ferocious, but always, at least, discriminating and humiliating system of dhimmitude status, in accordance with the model set up by the founder of Islam.

Note: Louis Aliot, vice-president of the Front National, and companion of Marine Le Pen, has said in an interview posted at Novopress that France is partly responsible for the persecutions, and that to help the Christians France should put pressure on Qatar and Saudi Arabia who are, he says, funding the the jihadists. He also makes a reference to the journey of the three bishops, named above, who agree with him. He makes the following incredible statement:

"If you accept the idea that they should all be brought to France, then you are accepting the ethnic cleansing that the Islamists are engaged in at this moment. But when I say that, it doesn't mean that I am not touched and angered at what the Christians are enduring. You can find on the Internet videos showing executions of hundreds of Christians. And you hear not a word in the media, while they all talk about Gaza. For the press to be silent is already inadmissible, but for the U.N. to remain silent, that's unbelievable!"

Note: Dear Louis: I am so glad you are "touched and angered" by the sight of pregnant women's bellies being slit open. It is indeed unbelievable! Who would have thought that the anti-Christian anti-Western United Nations would remain silent? And yes, maybe it is better that they stay in Iraq rather than be slaughtered on some dark street in a French suburb.

Bernard Antony continues:

Surprisingly, these remarks are in direct contradiction with those of Pope Francis who often fulminates at the fact that Europe does not welcome enough - not enough, and not quickly enough and not well enough the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who arrive ceaselessly on the coast of Sicily and elsewhere. Those people, it is true, are 90% Muslims, whom the rich Islamist States will not take in. These populations who are joining the Muslim masses in Europe, must really be benefitting from the ideal of "living-together".

Chrétienté-Solidarité expresses for its part its position respectfully equidistant from that of the Pope and that of cardinal Barbarin and the others. Since neither France, nor the other countries of the West, are able to protect the Christians from countless Islamic terrors, we should be able to bring into our countries those who are most threatened. Experience has proven that they integrate rapidly and peacefully.

Moreover, it would be beneficial if Pope Francis urged the rich Muslim powers to welcome immigrants fleeing destabilized Islamic countries. That would provide a double perspective of charity:

- charity of Christians for their Christian brothers fleeing Islamist massacres.

- realistic political charity free from the illusion of "living-together", that too often leads in the long run to new tragedies, as experience has shown.

Note: So saving the most endangered Christians would be an act of Christian charity, and would at the same time expose the truth about the progressives' fairy-tale of living-together.

The shocking thing is that such high-ranking members of the Church are sold on this fairy-tale. Either these men have not been educated in the tradition of the Church, or their education rolled right off of them.

Photo above: Cardinal Barbarin in the Qaraqosh cathedral. Below, bishop Michel Dubost also in Qaraqosh. From Le Figaro.