France: The Failure of Western Secularism (edited)

Authors

FRANCE: THE FAILURE OF WESTERN SECULARISM

For well over fifty years France has taken in large numbers of Muslim immigrants, mainly from its former colonies in North Africa. Especially in the 1960s and 1970s, when the economy was booming, they were needed to do the menial jobs that French people no longer wanted to do. It is estimated that they total some five million – some say many more with their children.

Successive French governments over-confidently asserted that their presence in France posed no difficulties, thanks to the French State religion of ‘secularism’. Born of the atheist French Revolution, this ideology claimed that, thanks to its belief in ‘Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood’, all immigrants could be absorbed and integrated into French national conformity. Strangely enough, no-one seemed to have noticed that the Muslim immigrants and their descendants were housed in poverty-stricken tower-block ghettos, concrete shanty-towns, ringing French cities and towns. The Muslims are strangely unfree, strangely unequal and strangely unbrotherly.

The fact is that secularism, French or other, only works when people lose their faith and are contemptuous of religious values. If, on the other hand, people have a strong religious faith, culture and identity, then secularism is a total failure. After all, secularism fails to recognize that the fundamental reality of human beings is not that they are equal, but that they are different. And any organization which fails to recognize human diversity will inevitably collapse. It happened in the old Soviet Union and the Yugoslav Union, as it has happened in centralized systems throughout the world. Today it is happening in centralized France. The fact that Muslim women and girls are not allowed to wear headscarves in public buildings, such as schools, is not ‘equality’ or ‘freedom’, it is in fact simply an ‘unbrotherly’ act of religious and cultural persecution – and everybody knows it.

As a former resident of the Paris suburbs from 1983 to 1997, knowing only too well those ‘suburbs’ (the French euphemism for ghettos), where the current wave of violence has started, I am amazed that this violence did not break out years ago. Many factors are behind it; the name of the disease is indeed ‘legion’.

First of all, there is the fact that most of the immigrants in France and their children and grandchildren live there because the Arabs of North Africa defeated the French in wars of colonial liberation some fifty years ago. In particular, no North African can forget the traumas of the Franco-Algerian War of 1954-1962, with its torture and atrocities, leaving two million, mainly Arab, dead. As for the French, they find it difficult to forgive the Arabs for their national humiliation in the ‘Maghreb’.

As a result, a large percentage of the French support the National Front Party of the elderly racist Le Pen, who some fifty years ago fought with the French Army in North Africa. The fact that the young rioters of today were born in France is overlooked: they are still ‘des arabes’. The fact that the ultra-ambitious, right-wing French Minister of the Interior, Nicolas Sarkozy, who called the rioters ‘scum’, is himself a Jew, is unlikely to quell the violence of French Muslim protestors. Behind all this, there is also the historic rivalry between European Catholicism and Islam, which began long ago with the aggressive European Imperialism of the Crusades

Secondly, France is dominated by a rigid and disconnected elite who dominate its institutions, making the British class system look incredibly flexible and modern. All the last five French Presidents, since the 1960s, have even physically resembled one another – elderly, bald bureaucrats. The political class, products of the elitist ENA political school in Paris, all seem to be the same, regardless of the Party to which they belong and which they founded in order to launch them to the Presidency. ‘L’immobilisme’ of France is quite extraordinary, for it excludes all outsiders. France is paralysed by its own elite, leaving a despised, excluded, largely immigrant underclass of the poor and disenfranchised. The French always revolt – no wonder, the aristocratic elite simply does not represent the people. Beneath the imported veneer of democracy, there simmer parallels, sometimes surprisingly similar to some of the conditions which prevailed before the French Revolution. And the poor Muslim immigrants and their French-born children and grandchildren are not represented by the government-controlled media, whose all too deferential journalists receive from the government comfortable apartments in the chic but expensive centre of Paris.

France’s weak and ailing gerontocrat-President, Jacques Chirac, who in the tradition of Pompidou and Mitterrand before him, refuses to step down, clinging on to his power even in his dying gasps, does not know what to do. Instead, the unelected Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, a French aristocrat and poet, dithers, with less than six months experience, he seems lost. Frankly, the French political system of Presidential absolutism (even if it now only lasts for five years) seems ill-adapted to twenty-first century politics. Now that the recently hospitalized President is dying, the ignoble scramble has begun to succeed him, Sarkozy and de Villepin the most likely rivals for power. The situation does not make for strong leadership and political direction in a divided nation.

Finally, there is the great and unresolved problem suffered by the children of Muslim immigrants to France – unemployment. For over fifteen years unemployment has been a cancer in France. Each successive government has refused to tackle the problem, brushing it under the carpet. They massaged the unemployment figures with ‘Youth Training Schemes’. They massaged the figures by massive ‘early retirements’, with people as young as 45 being retired ‘prematurely’. They massaged the figures by keeping young people in education well into their twenties. And after five years of University, they still could not obtain jobs. As long ago as 1995, the then French Prime Minister, Alain Juppé, noted that the real unemployment figures were six million, not the official three million – and these are still the same today. Of course, Juppé lost the elections. Politicians should not announce the truth. After him, Chirac famously told the unemployed young to ‘emigrate’: clearly, a long-sighted statesman.

I myself left France in 1997, as a result of the assassination of my employer, which left me unemployed. However, for the Muslim young people of today’s France, among whom unemployment is often well over 30% and of whom many have never worked and have no prospect of ever working, the situation is incomparably worse. They cannot leave. Having spent huge sums on megalomaniac public works to glorify their Presidents in the past (who can forget the Pharoahism of Mitterrand?), State finances are critically indebted. Confined to their Communist-built tower-blocks on rundown estates, the like of which can be found elsewhere only in ex-Communist Eastern Europe, with no future before them, the ‘peasants’ of modern France are revolting. House people like animals, and, inevitably, they will start behaving like animals. Despise them, and, inevitably, they will despise you.

French governments and their media sometimes tend to gloat over the problems which their international rivals suffer. Suffering from a national inferiority complex as an ex-World Power, they often petulantly point out the failings of others, forgetting to look at their own failings, blaming everything on some imaginary bogeyman or other: ‘les anglo-saxons’, ‘la mondialisation’ ‘l’ultra-libéralisme’ etc etc.

However, it would be a pity if some were tempted to gloat over the results of French hubris. The fact is that in terms of immigration policy all Western European governments have acted like the French. In their arrogance, all those governments have in the last fifty years accepted large numbers of Muslim immigrants, who naturally have had children and grandchildren. The governments all supposed that they would be able to integrate such immigrants easily, through one form or another of secularism. The fact is – secularism does not work. The foolish arrogance of thinking that religion does not shape culture, that religion in general is unimportant, now has to be paid for.

Whether in Britain, with its British-born Muslim terrorist bombers, in Holland with its anti-immigration Party and political stabbings, in Germany with its disenfranchised Turkish millions, in Spain with its train bombings and Muslims who want ‘our mosques’ back, in Italy with its chaotic and unchecked immigration, in France and Belgium with their immigrant ghettos, each Western European government is now going to have to take measures to decide where it is going. In a France with an ailing, almost invisible President, elected only to stop the National Front from coming to power, in a politically crippled Germany, ‘governed’ by a non-government, in an Italy racked by political corruption, in a ‘fin de règne’ UK, ruled by an incredibly arrogant Prime Minister, who long ago lost all authority by undemocratically leading his country into a Texan oil war, and whom even his own Party views as a liability, Western Europe presents a picture of a drifting and rudderless ship.

Dare I say it? Today France: tomorrow Western Europe?

After decades of secularist irresponsibility, a lot of people are going to have to face up to reality and responsibility. Just because you, the elites of Western Europe, happen to despise religious belief, do not think that religion will go away. It is coming back to haunt you – and now you must pay the price for your past contempt for it.

For well over fifty years France has taken in large numbers of Muslim immigrants, mainly from its former colonies in North Africa. Especially in the 1960s and 1970s, when the economy was booming, they were needed to do the menial jobs that French people no longer wanted to do. It is estimated that they total some five million – some say many more with their children.

Successive French governments over-confidently asserted that their presence in France posed no difficulties, thanks to the French State religion of ‘secularism’. Born of the atheist French Revolution, this ideology claimed that, thanks to its belief in ‘Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood’, all immigrants could be absorbed and integrated into French national conformity. Strangely enough, no-one seemed to have noticed that the Muslim immigrants and their descendants were housed in poverty-stricken tower-block ghettos, concrete shanty-towns, ringing French cities and towns. The Muslims are strangely unfree, strangely unequal and strangely unbrotherly.

The fact is that secularism, French or other, only works when people lose their faith and are contemptuous of religious values. If, on the other hand, people have a strong religious faith, culture and identity, then secularism is a total failure. After all, secularism fails to recognize that the fundamental reality of human beings is not that they are equal, but that they are different. And any organization which fails to recognize human diversity will inevitably collapse. It happened in the old Soviet Union and the Yugoslav Union, as it has happened in centralized systems throughout the world. Today it is happening in centralized France. The fact that Muslim women and girls are not allowed to wear headscarves in public buildings, such as schools, is not ‘equality’ or ‘freedom’, it is in fact simply an ‘unbrotherly’ act of religious and cultural persecution – and everybody knows it.

As a former resident of the Paris suburbs from 1983 to 1997, knowing only too well those ‘suburbs’ (the French euphemism for ghettos), where the current wave of violence has started, I am amazed that this violence did not break out years ago. Many factors are behind it; the name of the disease is indeed ‘legion’.

First of all, there is the fact that most of the immigrants in France and their children and grandchildren live there because the Arabs of North Africa defeated the French in wars of colonial liberation some fifty years ago. In particular, no North African can forget the traumas of the Franco-Algerian War of 1954-1962, with its torture and atrocities, leaving two million, mainly Arab, dead. As for the French, they find it difficult to forgive the Arabs for their national humiliation in the ‘Maghreb’.

As a result, a large percentage of the French support the National Front Party of the elderly racist Le Pen, who some fifty years ago fought with the French Army in North Africa. The fact that the young rioters of today were born in France is overlooked: they are still ‘des arabes’. The fact that the ultra-ambitious, right-wing French Minister of the Interior, Nicolas Sarkozy, who called the rioters ‘scum’, is himself a Jew, is unlikely to quell the violence of French Muslim protestors. Behind all this, there is also the historic rivalry between European Catholicism and Islam, which began long ago with the aggressive European Imperialism of the Crusades

Secondly, France is dominated by a rigid and disconnected elite who dominate its institutions, making the British class system look incredibly flexible and modern. All the last five French Presidents, since the 1960s, have even physically resembled one another – elderly, bald bureaucrats. The political class, products of the elitist ENA political school in Paris, all seem to be the same, regardless of the Party to which they belong and which they founded in order to launch them to the Presidency. ‘L’immobilisme’ of France is quite extraordinary, for it excludes all outsiders. France is paralysed by its own elite, leaving a despised, excluded, largely immigrant underclass of the poor and disenfranchised. The French always revolt – no wonder, the aristocratic elite simply does not represent the people. Beneath the imported veneer of democracy, there simmer parallels, sometimes surprisingly similar to some of the conditions which prevailed before the French Revolution. And the poor Muslim immigrants and their French-born children and grandchildren are not represented by the government-controlled media, whose all too deferential journalists receive from the government comfortable apartments in the chic but expensive centre of Paris.

France’s weak and ailing gerontocrat-President, Jacques Chirac, who in the tradition of Pompidou and Mitterrand before him, refuses to step down, clinging on to his power even in his dying gasps, does not know what to do. Instead, the unelected Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, a French aristocrat and poet, dithers, with less than six months experience, he seems lost. Frankly, the French political system of Presidential absolutism (even if it now only lasts for five years) seems ill-adapted to twenty-first century politics. Now that the recently hospitalized President is dying, the ignoble scramble has begun to succeed him, Sarkozy and de Villepin the most likely rivals for power. The situation does not make for strong leadership and political direction in a divided nation.

Finally, there is the great and unresolved problem suffered by the children of Muslim immigrants to France – unemployment. For over fifteen years unemployment has been a cancer in France. Each successive government has refused to tackle the problem, brushing it under the carpet. They massaged the unemployment figures with ‘Youth Training Schemes’. They massaged the figures by massive ‘early retirements’, with people as young as 45 being retired ‘prematurely’. They massaged the figures by keeping young people in education well into their twenties. And after five years of University, they still could not obtain jobs. As long ago as 1995, the then French Prime Minister, Alain Juppé, noted that the real unemployment figures were six million, not the official three million – and these are still the same today. Of course, Juppé lost the elections. Politicians should not announce the truth. After him, Chirac famously told the unemployed young to ‘emigrate’: clearly, a long-sighted statesman.

I myself left France in 1997, as a result of the assassination of my employer, which left me unemployed. However, for the Muslim young people of today’s France, among whom unemployment is often well over 30% and of whom many have never worked and have no prospect of ever working, the situation is incomparably worse. They cannot leave. Having spent huge sums on megalomaniac public works to glorify their Presidents in the past (who can forget the Pharoahism of Mitterrand?), State finances are critically indebted. Confined to their Communist-built tower-blocks on rundown estates, the like of which can be found elsewhere only in ex-Communist Eastern Europe, with no future before them, the ‘peasants’ of modern France are revolting. House people like animals, and, inevitably, they will start behaving like animals. Despise them, and, inevitably, they will despise you.

French governments and their media sometimes tend to gloat over the problems which their international rivals suffer. Suffering from a national inferiority complex as an ex-World Power, they often petulantly point out the failings of others, forgetting to look at their own failings, blaming everything on some imaginary bogeyman or other: ‘les anglo-saxons’, ‘la mondialisation’ ‘l’ultra-libéralisme’ etc etc.

However, it would be a pity if some were tempted to gloat over the results of French hubris. The fact is that in terms of immigration policy all Western European governments have acted like the French. In their arrogance, all those governments have in the last fifty years accepted large numbers of Muslim immigrants, who naturally have had children and grandchildren. The governments all supposed that they would be able to integrate such immigrants easily, through one form or another of secularism. The fact is – secularism does not work. The foolish arrogance of thinking that religion does not shape culture, that religion in general is unimportant, now has to be paid for.

Whether in Britain, with its British-born Muslim terrorist bombers, in Holland with its anti-immigration Party and political stabbings, in Germany with its disenfranchised Turkish millions, in Spain with its train bombings and Muslims who want ‘our mosques’ back, in Italy with its chaotic and unchecked immigration, in France and Belgium with their immigrant ghettos, each Western European government is now going to have to take measures to decide where it is going. In a France with an ailing, almost invisible President, elected only to stop the National Front from coming to power, in a politically crippled Germany, ‘governed’ by a non-government, in an Italy racked by political corruption, in a ‘fin de règne’ UK, ruled by an incredibly arrogant Prime Minister, who long ago lost all authority by undemocratically leading his country into a Texan oil war, and whom even his own Party views as a liability, Western Europe presents a picture of a drifting and rudderless ship.

Dare I say it? Today France: tomorrow Western Europe?

After decades of secularist irresponsibility, a lot of people are going to have to face up to reality and responsibility. Just because you, the elites of Western Europe, happen to despise religious belief, do not think that religion will go away. It is coming back to haunt you – and now you must pay the price for your past contempt for it. (3104 words) [1]

French Ex-President Charles de Gaulle if the Founding Father of Eurabia October 3rd, 2012.

Where does this mess come from? Who is responsible for all of this? Who created this insanity that is now our Muslim problems, our biggest threat to our future and existence, the cause of vicious crimes, import of medieval standards, economic strains and decline, the mess that Europe is in today?
The whole problem originates from Europe’s Arab headquarters: France.
France with the backing of the EU Commission. And this is where aggressive lawsuits need to be pointed. The MEDEA Institute and the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation and other meddling organizations need to be shut-down. And we need to reverse policies and decisions to pre-PAEAC and before the EU gave permission for Arab infiltration into our countries, where even the horrid and violent Arab history was re-written and glorified to our children, without any accuracies at all.

.

During a November 27, 1967 press conference, Charles de Gaulle stated openly that French cooperation with the Arab world had become “the fundamental basis of our foreign policy.” Five years later in Paris, July 1974, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was created, under the Euro-Arab Dialogue rubric.

The Euro-Arab political agenda constructed a common foreign policy. France was the driving force in this unification, which had already been envisaged by General de Gaulle’s inner circle and Arab politicians.
.
The Arab states demanded from Europe European pressure on the United States to align with their Arab policy and demonization of Israel as a threat to world peace, as well as measures favorable to Arab immigration and dissemination of Islamic culture in Europe.
.
Up to 1973 the Palestinians had been known only as Arab refugees, even by other Arabs. The concept of a Palestinian “nation” simply did not exist.

While Charles de Gaulle imported millions of Arabs into Europe and bent backwards on their demands he didn’t make a single demand on Arabia for the same equality and rights to be issued to non-Muslims or Europeans on Arabian soil.
.
The Arab political agenda also demanded that our educational materials change to a pro-Palestinian one, and a new but inaccurate depiction of Arab history as one of victims (of crusaders and Israel), scientists, innovators and grandeur which was contrary to historical facts. The root of Islam originates from the bedouin’s who were illiterate desert dwellers and frequently responsible for highway robberies, and not scientists and innovators. The crusaders fought against the Caliphates to defend their own land, not to conquer Arab land.

Eurabia by FJORDMAN

I decided to write this essay after a comment from a journalist, not a Leftist by my country’s standards, who dismissed Eurabia as merely a conspiracy theory, one on a par with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I do not disagree with the fact that conspiracy theories exist, nor that they can be dangerous. After all, the Protocols and the Dolchstosslegende, or “stab in the back myth” – the idea that Germany didn’t lose WW1 but was betrayed by Socialists, intellectuals and Jews – helped pave the way for Adolf Hitler and the Nazis before WW2.

However, what puzzles me is that it is a widely-held belief of many (not just in the Islamic world but in Europe and even in the United States) that the terror attacks that brought down the Twin Towers in New York City on September 11th 2001 were really a controlled demolition staged by the American government and then blamed on Muslims. I have seen this thesis talked about many times in Western media. While it is frequently (though not always) dismissed and mocked, it is least mentioned.

In contrast, Eurabia – which asserts that the Islamicization of Europe didn’t happen merely by accident but with the active participation of European political leaders – is hardly ever referred to at all, despite the fact that it is easier to document. Does the notion of Eurabia hit too close to home? Perhaps it doesn’t fit with the anti-American disposition of many journalists? Curiously enough, even those left-leaning journalists who are otherwise critical of the European Union because of its free market elements never write about Eurabia.

Because of this, I am going to test whether the Eurabia thesis is correct, or at least plausible. I have called this project The Eurabia Code, alluding to author Dan Brown’s massive bestseller The Da Vinci Code. Brown’s fictional account “documents” a conspiracy by the Church to cover up the truth about Jesus. I’m not sure my work will become equally popular, but I’m pretty sure it’s closer to reality.

The next time Mr. Brown wants to write about massive conspiracies in Europe, he would be well-advised to set his eyes at Brussels rather than Rome. It would be a whole lot more interesting. What follows is a brief outline of the thesis put forward by writer Bat Ye’or in her book “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis.” My information is based on her book (which should be read in full). In addition I have drawn from some of her articles and interviews. I republish the information with her blessing, but this summary is completely my own.

In an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Bat Ye’or explained how French President Charles de Gaulle, disappointed by the loss of the French colonies in Africa and the Middle East as well as with France’s waning influence in the international arena, decided in the 1960’s to create a strategic alliance with the Arab and Muslim world to compete with the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union.

“This is a matter of a total transformation of Europe, which is the result of an intentional policy,” said Bat Ye’or. “We are now heading towards a total change in Europe, which will be more and more Islamicized and will become a political satellite of the Arab and Muslim world. The European leaders have decided on an alliance with the Arab world, through which they have committed to accept the Arab and Muslim approach toward the United States and Israel. This is not only with respect to foreign policy, but also on issues engaging European society from within, such as immigration, the integration of the immigrants and the idea that Islam is part of Europe.“

“Europe is under a constant threat of terror. Terror is a way of applying pressure on the European countries to surrender constantly to the Arab representatives’ demands. They demand, for example, that Europe always speak out for the Palestinians and against Israel.”

Thus, the Eurabian project became an enlarged vision of the anti-American Gaullist policy dependent upon the formation of a Euro-Arab entity hostile to American influence. It facilitated European ambitions to maintain important spheres of influence in the former European colonies, while opening huge markets for European products in the Arab world, especially in oil-producing countries, in order to secure supplies of petroleum and natural gas to Europe. In addition, it would make the Mediterranean a Euro-Arab inland sea by favoring Muslim immigration and promoting Multiculturalism with a strong Islamic presence in Europe.

The use of the term “Eurabia” was first introduced in the mid-1970s, as the title of a journal edited by the President of the Association for Franco-Arab Solidarity, Lucien Bitterlein, and published collaboratively by the Groupe d’Etudes sur le Moyen-Orient (Geneva), France-Pays Arabes (Paris), and the Middle East International (London). Their articles called for common Euro-Arab positions at every level. These concrete proposals were not the musings of isolated theorists; instead they put forth concrete policy decisions conceived in conjunction with, and actualized by, European state leaders and European Parliamentarians.

During a November 27, 1967 press conference, Charles de Gaulle stated openly that French cooperation with the Arab world had become “the fundamental basis of our foreign policy.” By January 1969, the Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples, held in Cairo, in its resolution 15, decided “…to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance.” Five years later in Paris, July 1974, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was created, under the Euro-Arab Dialogue rubric.

Bat Ye’or has highlighted this shared Euro-Arab political agenda. The first step was the construction of a common foreign policy. France was the driving force in this unification, which had already been envisaged by General de Gaulle’s inner circle and Arab politicians. The Arab states demanded from Europe access to Western science and technology, European political independence from the United States, European pressure on the United States to align with their Arab policy and demonization of Israel as a threat to world peace, as well as measures favorable to Arab immigration and dissemination of Islamic culture in Europe. This cooperation would also included recognition of the Palestinians as a distinct people and the PLO and its leader Arafat as their representative. Up to 1973 they had been known only as Arab refugees, even by other Arabs. The concept of a Palestinian “nation” simply did not exist.

During the 1973 oil crisis, the Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries announced that, due to the ongoing Yom Kippur War between Israel and its Arab neighbors Egypt and Syria, OPEC would no longer ship petroleum to Western nations that supported Israel. The sudden increase in oil prices was had lasting effects. Not only did it create a strong influx of petrodollars to countries such as Saudi Arabia, which permitted the Saudis to fund a worldwide Islamic resurgence, but it also had an impact in the West, especially in Europe.

However, Arab leaders had to sell their oil. Their people are very dependent on European economic and technological aid. The Americans made this point during the oil embargo in 1973. According to Bat Ye’or, although the oil factor certainly helped cement the Euro-Arab Dialogue, it was primarily a pretext to cover up a policy that emerged in France before that crisis occurred. The policy, conceived in the 1960s, had strong antecedents in the French 19th-century dream of governing an Arab empire.

This political agenda has been reinforced by the deliberate cultural transformation of Europe. Euro-Arab Dialogue Symposia conducted in Venice (1977) and Hamburg (1983) included recommendations that have been successfully implemented. These recommendations were accompanied by a deliberate, privileged influx of Arab and other Muslim immigrants into Europe in enormous numbers.

The recommendations included:

1. Coordination of the efforts made by the Arab countries to spread the Arabic language and culture in Europe,
2. Creation of joint Euro-Arab Cultural Centers in European capitals,
3. The necessity of supplying European institutions and universities with Arab teachers specialized in teaching Arabic to Europeans, and
4. The necessity of cooperation between European and Arab specialists in order to present a positive picture of Arab-Islamic civilization and contemporary Arab issues to the educated public in Europe.

These agreements could not be set forth in written documents and treaties due to their politically sensitive and fundamentally undemocratic nature. The European leaders thus carefully chose to call their ideas “dialogue.” All meetings, committees and working groups included representatives from European Community nations and the European Council along with members from Arab countries and the Arab League. Proceedings and decisions took place in closed sessions. No official minutes were recorded.

The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) is a political, economic and cultural institution designed to ensure perfect cohesion between Europeans and Arabs. Its structure was set up at conferences in Copenhagen (15 December 1973), and Paris (31 July 1974). The principal agent of this policy is the European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, founded in 1974. The other principal organs of The Dialogue are the MEDEA Institute and the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation, created in 1995 with the backing of the European Commission.

In an interview with Jamie Glazov of Frontpage Magazine, Bat Ye’or explained how “in domestic policy, the EAD established a close cooperation between the Arab and European media television, radio, journalists, publishing houses, academia, cultural centers, school textbooks, student and youth associations, tourism. Church interfaith dialogues were determinant in the development of this policy. Eurabia is therefore this strong Euro-Arab network of associations — a comprehensive symbiosis with cooperation and partnership on policy, economy, demography and culture.”

Eurabia’s driving force, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, was created in Paris in 1974. It now has over six hundred members – from all major European political parties – active in their own national parliaments, as well as in the European parliament. France continues to be the key protagonist of this association.

A wide-ranging policy was sketched out. It entailed a symbiosis of Europe with the Muslim Arab countries that would endow Europe – and especially France, the project’s prime mover – with a weight and a prestige to rival that of the United States. This policy was undertaken quite discreetly, and well outside of official treaties, using the innocent-sounding name of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The organization functioned under the auspices of European government ministers, working in close association with their Arab counterparts, and with the representatives of the European Commission and the Arab League. The goal was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean entity, permitting the free circulation both of men and of goods.

On the cultural front there began a complete re-writing of history, which was first undertaken during the 1970s in European universities. This process was ratified by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in September 1991, at its meeting devoted to “The Contribution of the Islamic Civilisation to European culture.” It was reaffirmed by French President Jacques Chirac in his address of April 8, 1996 in Cairo, and reinforced by Romano Prodi, president of the powerful European Commission, the EU’s “government,” and later Italian Prime Minister, through the creation of a Foundation on the Dialogue of Cultures and Civilizations. This foundation was to control everything said, written and taught about Islam in Europe.

Over the past three decades, the EEC and the EU’s political and cultural organizations have invented a fantasy Islamic civilization and history. The historical record of violations of basic human rights for all non-Muslims and women under sharia (Islamic Law) is either ignored or dismissed. In this worldview the only dangers come from the United States and Israel. The creators of Eurabia have conducted a successful propaganda campaign against these two countries in the European media. This fabrication was made easier by pre-existing currents of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in parts of Europe, although both sentiments have been greatly inflated by Eurabians and their collaborators.

On January 31, 2001, with the recrudescence of Palestinian terrorist jihad, European Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten declared to the European Parliament that Europe’s foreign policy should give special attention to its southern flank (the Arab countries, in EU jargon), adding that he was delighted by the general agreement to give greater visibility to the Mediterranean Partnership.

Bat Ye’or thinks that “Our politicians are perfectly informed of Islamic history and current policies by their embassies, agents and specialists. There is no innocence there, but tremendous inflexibility in corruption, cynicism and the perversion of values.”

In the preface to her book, she states that “This book describes Europe’s evolution from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment secular elements, into a post– Judeo-Christian civilization that is subservient to the ideology of jihad and the Islamic powers.”

The new European civilization in the making can correctly be termed a ”civilization of dhimmitude.” The word dhimmitude comes from the Islamic legal designation ”dhimmi.” It refers to the subjugated, non-Muslim individuals who accept restrictive and humiliating subordination to Islamic power in order to avoid enslavement or death. The entire Muslim world as we know it today is a product of this 1,300 year-old jihad dynamic, whereby once thriving non-Muslim majority civilizations have been reduced to a state of dysfunction and dhimmitude. The dhimmis are inferior beings who endure humiliation and aggression in silence. This arrangement allows Muslims to enjoy an impunity that increases both their hatred and their feeling of superiority, under the protection of the law.

Eurabia is a novel new entity. It possesses political, economic, religious, cultural, and media components, which are imposed on Europe by powerful governmental lobbies. While Europeans live within Eurabia’s constraints, outside of a somewhat confused awareness, few are really conscious of them on a daily basis.

This Eurabian policy, expressed in obscure wording, is conducted at the highest political levels and coordinated over the whole of the European Union. It spreads an anti-American and anti-Semitic Euro-Arab sub-culture into the fiber of every social, media and cultural sector. Dissidents are silenced or boycotted. Sometimes they are fired from their jobs, victims of a totalitarian “correctness” imposed mainly by the academic, media and political sectors.

According to Ye’or, France and the rest of Western Europe can no longer change their policy: “It is a project that was conceived, planned and pursued consistently through immigration policy, propaganda, church support, economic associations and aid, cultural, media and academic collaboration. Generations grew up within this political framework; they were educated and conditioned to support it and go along with it.”

Are Bat Ye’or’s claims correct, or even possible?

Bernard Lewis has pointed out that, by common consent among historians, “the modern history of the Middle East begins in the year 1798, when the French Revolution arrived in Egypt in the form of a small expeditionary force led by a young general called Napoleon Bonaparte–who conquered and then ruled it for a while with appalling ease.”

In an unsuccessful effort to gain the support of the Egyptian populace, Napoleon issued proclamations praising Islam. “People of Egypt,” he proclaimed upon his entry to Alexandria in 1798, “You will be told that I have come to destroy your religion; do not believe it! Reply that I have come to restore your rights, to punish the usurpers, and that more than the Mamluks, I respect God, his Prophet, and the Qur’an.”

According to an eyewitness, Napoleon ended his proclamation with the phrase, “God is great and Muhammad is his prophet.” To Muslim ears, this sounded like the shahada – the declaration of belief in the oneness of Allah and in Prophet Muhammad as his last messenger. Recitation of the shahadah, the first of the five pillars of Islam, is considered to mark one’s conversion to Islam. Muslims could thus conclude that Napoleon had converted to Islam. In fact, one of his generals, Jacques Ménou, did convert to Islam.

The French were later defeated and forced to leave Egypt by the English admiral Lord Nelson. Although the French expedition to Egypt lasted only three years, it demonstrated that the West was now so superior to the Islamic world that Westerners could enter the Arab heartland, then still a part of the Ottoman Empire, at will. Only another Western power could force them to leave. The shock of this realization triggered the first attempts to reform Islam in the 19th century.

A positive result of Western conquest was the influx of French scientists into Egypt and the foundation of modern Egyptology. Most importantly, it led to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, which was later used by French philologist Jean-François Champollion to decipher the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. However, the encounter also left a lasting impact in Europe, and above all in France.

The French invasion of Algeria in 1830 marked another chapter in this tale. Later, the French ruled Tunisia and Morocco. Finally, after the First World War, the French gained mandates over the former Turkish territories of the Ottoman Empire that make up what is now Syria and Lebanon. After the Second World War, French troops gradually left Arab lands, culminating with war and Algerian independence in 1962. However, their long relationship with Arabs resulted in France’s belief that she had a special relationship with and an understanding of Arabs and Muslims. Along with French leadership in continental Europe, this would now provide the basis of a new foreign policy. President de Gaulle pushed for a France and a Europe independent of the two superpowers. In a speech, he stated that “Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, it is Europe, it is the whole of Europe, that will decide the destiny of the world.” In 1966, he withdrew France from the common NATO military command, but remained within the organization.

Following the Six Days War in 1967, de Gaulle’s condemnation of the Israelis for their occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip marked a significant change in French foreign policy. Previously, France – as well as the rest of Western Europe – had been strongly pro-Israel, even going to war together with Israel as late as 1956 against Nasser’s Egypt. From 1967 on, however, France embarked on a decidedly pro-Arab course.

It has been said that English foreign policy has remained the same since the 16th century. Its goal was to prevent any country, whether Spain, France, or later Germany, from dominating continental Europe to the extent that it represents a threat to England. On the other hand, one could argue that French foreign policy has also remained the same for several centuries; its goal is to champion French leadership over Europe and the Mediterranean region in order to contain Anglo-Saxon (and later Anglo-American) dominance. This picture was complicated by the unification of Germany in the late 19th century, but its outlines remain to this day.

Napoleon is the great hero of French PM de Villepin. Several prominent French leaders stated quite openly in 2005 that the proposed EU Constitution was basically an enlarged France. Justice Minister Dominique Perben said: “We have finally obtained this ‘Europe à la française’ that we have awaited for so long. This constitutional treaty is an enlarged France. It is a Europe written in French.” From its inception, European integration has been a French-led enterprise. The fact that the French political elite have never renounced the maintenance of their leadership over Europe was amply demonstrated during the Iraq war.

President Chirac famously said in 2003 after Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic backed the US position “They missed a good opportunity to shut up,” adding “These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position.”

Jean Monnet, French economist never elected to public office, is regarded by many as the architect of European integration. Monnet was a well-connected pragmatist who worked behind the scenes towards the gradual creation of European unity.

Richard North, publisher of the blog EU Referendum and co-author (with Christopher Booker) of The Great Deception: Can The European Union Survive, relates that for years – at least from the 1920s – Jean Monnet had dreamed of building a “United States of Europe.” Although what Monnet really had in mind was the creation of a European entity with all the attributes of a state, an “anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so that it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty.”

In their analysis of the EU’s history, the authors claim that the EU was not born out of WW2, as many people seem to think. It had been planned at least a generation before that.

The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, widely presented as the beginning of the efforts towards a European Union and commemorated in “Europe Day,” contains phrases which state that it is “a first step in the federation of Europe”, and that “this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation.” However, as critics of the EU have noted, these political objectives are usually omitted when the Declaration is referred to, and most people are unaware of their existence.

A federation is, of course, a State and “yet for decades now the champions of EC/EU integration have been swearing blind that they have no knowledge of any such plans. The EEC/EC/EU has steadily acquired ever more features of a supranational Federation: flag, anthem, Parliament, Supreme Court, currency, laws.”

The EU founders “were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.” Booker and North call the European Union “a slow-motion coup d’état: the most spectacular coup d’état in history,” designed to gradually and carefully sideline the democratic process and subdue the older nation states of Europe without saying so publicly.

The irony is that France is now held hostage by the very forces she herself set in motion. The Jihad riots by Muslim immigrants in France in 2005 demonstrated that Eurabia is no longer a matter of French foreign policy, it is now French domestic policy. France will burn unless she continues to appease Arabs and agree to their agenda.

The growth of the Islamic population is explosive. According to some, one out of three babies born in France is a Muslim. Hundreds of Muslim ghettos already de facto follow sharia, not French law. Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, while others are predicting a civil war in the near future.

Maybe there is some poetic justice in the fact that the country that initiated and has led the formation of Eurabia will now be destroyed by its own Frankenstein monster. However, gloating over France’s dilemma won’t help. The impending downfall of France is bad news for the rest of the West. What will happen to French financial resources? Above all, who will inherit hundreds of nuclear warheads? Will these weapons fall into the hands of Jihadist Muslims, too? (7374 words) [2]

Analysis and Discussions

(1) French President Charles de Gaulle, disappointed by the loss of the French colonies in Africa and the Middle East as well as with France’s waning influence in the international arena, decided in the 1960’s to create a strategic alliance with the Arab and Muslim world to compete with the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union.

(2) During a November 27, 1967 press conference, Charles de Gaulle stated openly that French cooperation with the Arab world had become “the fundamental basis of our foreign policy.” Five years later in Paris, July 1974, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was created, under the Euro-Arab Dialogue rubric.

(3) Euro-Arab Dialogue Symposia conducted in Venice (1977) and Hamburg (1983) included recommendations that have been successfully implemented. These recommendations were accompanied by a deliberate, privileged influx of Arab and other Muslim immigrants into Europe in enormous numbers. This political agenda has been reinforced by the deliberate cultural transformation of Europe.

The recommendations included:

1. Coordination of the efforts made by the Arab countries to spread the Arabic language and culture in Europe,
2. Creation of joint Euro-Arab Cultural Centers in European capitals,
3. The necessity of supplying European institutions and universities with Arab teachers specialized in teaching Arabic to Europeans, and
4. The necessity of cooperation between European and Arab specialists in order to present a positive picture of Arab-Islamic civilization and contemporary Arab issues to the educated public in Europe.

(4) The goal was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean entity, permitting “the free circulation both of men and of goods.” [Today in the EU this is their sacred text,”freedom of movement of peoples” that removes all borders to eliminate the concept of exclusion. But also this is accepted by Muslims to their advantage, it is not reciprocated or practiced by them.]

(5) “Europe is under a constant threat of terror. Terror is a way of applying pressure on the European countries to surrender constantly to the Arab representatives’ demands.(The Arab Lobbies are controlling the EU ruling bodies.) They demand, for example, that Europe always speak out for the Palestinians and against Israel.” (EU has succumbed and recognises the Palestinians as a legitimate entity.)

(6) The irony is that France is now held hostage by the very forces she herself set in motion. The Jihad riots by Muslim immigrants in France in 2005 demonstrated that Eurabia is no longer a matter of French foreign policy, it is now French domestic policy. France will burn unless she continues to appease Arabs and agree to their agenda.

(7) The Root Cause of the Mess is because of French Arrogance and Ignorance of Islam

(7.1) De Gaulle came from a devout Catholic family whose parents lamented the lack of religion in the French government. Educated in Catholic schools,1 de Gaulle was nothing less than completely devout his whole life. He didn’t speak of his faith very frequently, but there’s no doubt of its importance.

Although de Gaulle’s love of France was deeply entwined with its Catholic heritage, he remained committed to secular government.4 His religion, however, is only a small part of his immense legacy in France and through the world.

(7.2) However, their(France’s) long relationship with Arabs resulted in France’s belief that she had a special relationship with and an understanding of Arabs and Muslims. Along with French leadership in continental Europe, this would now provide the basis of a new foreign policy. President de Gaulle pushed for a France and a Europe independent of the two superpowers. In a speech, he stated that “Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, it is Europe, it is the whole of Europe, that will decide the destiny of the world.” In 1966, he withdrew France from the common NATO military command, but remained within the organization. [This led to Eúrabia and the European Union’s patronage of the Arabs. But did De Gaulle or France of Europe understand the Arabs or the Islamic ideologies? The evidence is NO.

De Gaulle only knew the Arabs as colonials under French rule. The Arabs were obedient and rather docile when they were under colonial rule. He took for granted that Islam was just another religion and neither he nor any of his ministers ever bothered to assume otherwise. No one would have assumed, then that Islam was a “Totalitarian Supremacist Autocratic Theocratic Cult” determined to rule the world under Allah. See Appendix below*. Because of this lack of understanding of the ideology of Islam, the whole Arab issue was handled with disastropus results today.]

(8) Arabs were quick to seek advantages for her people with the European willingness to accommodate their support and cooperation. The Arabs saw benefits  from access to Europe’s science and technology, to Europe’s generous welfare programmes (Non-exists in Arab countries), to employment opportunities for their unenemployed youth, to a free movement of their citizens and to equal opportunities to the same rights as European citizens, to be able to influence policies in all European Paeliamentary bodies as advisors or lobbyists. The Arabs would have been fools not to grab this opportunity offered by the French that was extended to the European Union.

(8.1) Euro-Arab Dialogue Symposia conducted in Venice (1977) and Hamburg (1983) included recommendations that have been successfully implemented. These recommendations were accompanied by a deliberate, privileged influx of Arab and other Muslim immigrants into Europe in enormous numbers. This political agenda has been reinforced by the deliberate cultural transformation of Europe. [This massive influx of Arab Muslims into Europe is the cause of the instability of the peace in Europe today, because Europeans do not understand that Islam is not immiscible with the European culture and Islam is determined to take over and rule Europe.

(8.2) The goal was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean entity, permitting the free circulation both of men and of goods. The French, with pressures from the Arabs, and with their obssession for secularism, believed that the removal of national political boundary barriers would help to remove the feelings of exclusion and segregation. Thus the concept of the free movement of peoples was forced into European Union policy so much so that Angella Merkel too, is a staunch supporter of this principle and now it is one of the sacred charters of the EU.

(8.3) France’s obssession with Secularism for all is Misjudged and Unworkable

Successive French governments over-confidently asserted that their (Islamic Arabs) presence in France posed no difficulties, thanks to the French State religion of ‘secularism’. Born of the atheist French Revolution, this ideology claimed that, thanks to its belief in ‘Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood’, all immigrants could be absorbed and integrated into French national conformity.

Strangely enough, no-one seemed to have noticed that the Muslim immigrants and their descendants were housed in poverty-stricken tower-block ghettos, concrete shanty-towns, ringing French cities and towns. The Muslims are strangely unfree, strangely unequal and strangely unbrotherly.

The fact is that secularism, French or other, only works when people lose their faith and are contemptuous of religious values. If, on the other hand, people have a strong religious faith, culture and identity, then secularism is a total failure. After all, secularism fails to recognize that the fundamental reality of human beings is not that they are equal, but that they are different. And any organization which fails to recognize human diversity will inevitably collapse.

[ There is no question that any Muslim would ever recognise the practice of secularism in Islam. ItThe French may apply secularism to the Muslims in France, but if the Muslims do not accept secularism and continue to practice their strict fundamentalist theism, then French secularism is neutered. There is no question that secularism is alien to Islamic ideology and will never be accepted in Islam. So French secularism is a total failure with respect to Islam. This is a aspect of secularism that is not understood by almost all Europeans and Americans.] (8598 words)

Appendix

See: Five Reasons why Islam is a Cult:

https://mbplee.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/five-reasons-why-islam-is-a-cult/http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/01/five-reasons-why-islam-is-a-cult/

Reference
[1] France: The Failing of Western Secularism: http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/france.htm
[2] French ex-President Charles de Gaulle is the founding father of Eurabia: https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/french-ex-president-charles-de-gaulle-is-the-founding-father-of-eurabia/

[8599 words]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: