Will France Really Be A Muslim Country?


There's a 16-page discussion at a Muslim forum called Mejliss el kalam, linked by François Desouche. To translate the entire discussion is out of the question. But here is the first page somewhat simplified....

The initial question, dated April 11, 2009, comes from ShamsTabrizi, from Somalia:

- Salam. In a city of 22 thousand inhabitants a few miles from Paris, more than 6 thousand persons participated in the Friday prayer at 2:00 p.m., including a significant number of converted Frenchmen and Frenchwomen. At the end of the prayer, seeing these people, I began to wonder in how many years France will be a mostly Muslim country.

- (Abelatif from Belgium responds): You must not have any illusions, my brother. France as a Muslim country will be several generations form now, or more. But it's true that it's beautiful to see Muslims of all origins at the mosque... Praise be to Allah

- (ShamsTabrizi): I don't agree. considering the evolution of the situation I have been witnessing, I do not give it more than 30 years before we will see mayors giving sermons on Friday to the faithful.

- (Abdel93600 from The Netherlands): Salam. The French are no longer having many children. Let's do France a favor and ensure the renewal of generations. It's a problem for many European countries! The birth rate in France recently reached a record, the highest in Europe, due in great part, to immigrant women.

- (Prince.Hakim from Belgium): I think we're heading for a Franco-Creole-Maghrebin civilization with massive intermarriage under the aegis of Islam.

- (Maléikite from Belgium): Brussels will be majority Muslim in less than 20 years (these are non-Muslim statistics). Inch'Allah.

- (MonSpeudo2 from France): Stop dreaming up tales about our country. It will never belong to you

- (ShamsTabrizi to Prince.Hakim): Then you agree with me. France will surely be a Muslim land for our grandchildren, maybe our children. So we must begin to construct a good basis to avoid unpleasant surprises for them in the future.

- (Maléikite to MonSpeudo2): Don't worry, we'll protect your rights, you will have the status of dhimmi.

- (ShamsTabrizi to MonSpeudo2): Ask your father if he ever imagined so many mosques and Muslims when he was your age. Then you'll have the answer as to whom France will belong. I like France, and I will like it even more when it's Muslim. Don't worry, we will be lenient on Christian minorities.

- (Prince-Hakim to MonSpeudo2): It will not be a matter of conquest, but of adherence to a joint effort between Frenchmen and Maghrebins. You should consider converting to Islam.

- (Ilyas_95 from France to MonSpeudo2): Bah! As far as I know France belongs to me as much as to you, doesn't it?

- (Parisien from France to Ilyas_95): No. I don't think so...

- (Prince.Hakim to ShamsTabrizi): I would even say the French deserve to be a part of the Umma.

- (Ilyas_95 to ShamsTabrizi): It's ridiculous to use threats... We're stuck in the suburbs and the high-rises. To say things like we're going to turn France upside-down, when we are not even able to agree on the best way to scratch our noses...

- (Ilyas_95 to Parisien): Really? Why not?

- (El-che from France): In 1974, at the UN, the Algerian president Houari Boumediene, declared: "One day, millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere to go north. And they won't go there as friends. Because they will be going to conquer. And they will conquer and people the land with their sons. It is the womb of women that will bring us victory."
In Le Figaro, December 19, 2006, our great friend Muammar Quadhafi declared: "Without sword, without rifles, without conquests, the 50 million Muslims in Europe will transform it soon into a Muslim continent!"

- (Prince.Hakim from Belgium): I think we should have a friendly attitude towards the French and convince them to join us.

- (ShamsTabrizi to Ilyas_95): There is no threat but a simple observation, and when you say we can't agree among ourselves you're off the topic. I don't see what that has to do with the evolution of society advancing in the interests of Islam and Muslims. And that is precisely why I said earlier that we must begin to construct a good basis for the future of our children.

- (Abdel93600 from The Netherlands): Salam. Are there any cities in France that are already majority Muslim or close to it? Except for Roubaix (that goes back a long time) and Marseilles? We're off to a good start, one at the northernmost end the other at the southernmost end?

- (Ilyas95 to ShamsTabrizi): The political power is now in the hands of a minority that remains in power. The numbers do not in any way change the rules of the game... we just have to see to what extent "our" cities (those that are majority Muslim) represent an enviable model for the entire world...

- (Le Compagnon from the UAE to MonSpeudo2): It already belongs to us. First mission accomplished, second mission: children, third: Islamization. End of operation. You will have the right to attend school without a veil.

- (Shams Tabrizi to Prince.Hakim): Salam. That's the way things are going. In the mosque where I prayed on Friday, it was the number of French Muslims that surprised me the most. Naturally, Islamization of society will take place with their help.

- (Ilyas_95 to ShamsTabrizi): What is "Islamization" of France??? The fact that everybody is Muslim???I say this because it is an important point after all...

- (Parisien from France): Then the Israelis are right after all.

[Note: He links to another thread where Israelis are said to call for the slitting open of the stomachs of pregnant Muslim women. "Parisien" was eventually suspended from the forum, not surprisingly.]

- (Need_Peace from Morocco): Assalam alaikom to all. I was in France just once, in August 2007. I spent two weeks there on holiday. I did not make any particular acquaintances with our brothers and sisters of Islam, but for the entire time, I had the certitude that it was a country where Islam will be majority, and I said to everyone that France will be glorified by Islam. Inch'Allah. It warms the heart to see the number of committed sincere converts.

- (ShamsTabrizi to Ilyas_95): Who said anything about taking power? Here we are talking about a majority of the population and it's already a good start. If you also want power, then instead of thinking of yourself as weak and saying that we'll never succeed, rise up and give yourself the means to do it. Don't look for excuses to stay in bed.

- (Didyme from France to ShamsTabrizi): Hello. There are about 3 thousand converts to Islam each year. Let's be liberal and say 5 thousand. Let's forget about the Muslims who become apostates. In order for France to become a majority Muslim country only through conversion, 20 million Frenchmen would have to convert (half of the 60 million Frenchmen minus the 10 million who are already Muslim).

[Notice that he said TEN million, not the usual five or six we so often hear about.]

At the rate of 5 thousand conversions per year it would take... 4000 years! So it's difficult to count on conversions alone.
You can count on the higher birth rate among immigrant Muslim families than among non-Muslims. But as Muslim immigrants attain the same standard of living as non-Muslims, the birthrates will become equal.
You can count on immigration even though the current policies indicate the opposite, that is, a policy of expulsion.

[Note: If he thinks Sarkozy is expelling many immigrants, he is perhaps fooling himself. Larger numbers are coming in than returning home.]

But some can always dream about a majority Muslim France in a "maximum of 30 years."
- (El-che to Prince.Hakim): We are not supposed to be a people who terrorize and who seek to wage war and cause blood to be shed, so yes, we must have a friendly attitude towards them.
-(Prince.Hakim to Parisien, re: the Israelis): They should go back to Russia or Poland or Ethiopia.


The conversation goes on for 15 more web pages. I have not had time to read through it all, but French readers may be interested. The comments at François Desouche are worth a look, although I can only post a few at random out of the 200:

- I will not have my children baptized, so that they don't appear on the lists of Christians. Islamists, when they are in power in France, like the Nazis before them, love to consult lists.

- History always ends with massacres and bloodbaths! If you know how to read between the lines, you know what you have to do!

- (...) In short, I'm very pessimistic for the future of France. I think that the only element that could change the situation might come from international events and a possible conflict with Iran. The Muslims of France will feel threatened and I think very violent riots are foreseeable on French territory, even kamikaze attacks! At that moment, a possible civil war between pro-Iranian and ethnic Frenchmen (of Christian origin) could break out.

- What a bunch of rats... but frankly, even if the country becomes Islamized, I don't think it will become a Muslim country so easily. I have hope that the French people in their majority will finally revolt before that happens.

- We still have time. You don't need 50% Muslims in France for chaos to reign. there are about 4-5 million Muslims in France, or 6 to 8% of the population. They already have quite a bit of nuisance value. Not to mention the non-Muslim foreigners. In all, perhaps 8 million non-Europeans, or 13% of the population.

- (...) Really I would tend to say there are about 8 to 10 million Muslims in France.

- With respect, I feel that the number of 5 million Muslims in France was surpassed long ago. There are at least 10 million!!

- I would say 10 to 12 million. Sometimes, I feel like leaving this country. It's becoming too hard, like seeing a woman you love, with her veins slashed, in a bathtub, and not being able to help her.

- Nobody is really fooled. At any rate not the ethnic Frenchmen. Almost everybody knows that there will be violence at the moment of the "passing of the torch", when the Muslim community is almost in the majority and their "cultural demands" become laws... There will always be a temptation on the part of this community to affirm its domination. It's then that things will begin to go badly.

- (...) Our friends the immigrants, Islamists, collaborators should not worry too much: the French are patient, very patient, too much so, but above all they are unpredictable and the day when the fire is lit, no one will be able to stop it. History has already proven that. (...)

- Having worked a various maternity hospitals in Paris and the nearby suburbs, I can attest that black women are in a very large majority. And they don't have just one child... I saw fewer Maghrebins.

- (In response to the reader who said he wants to leave the country) And that doesn't take into account the social climate. I don't know how it is where you work, but at my job it's war.

- At my job if they're unhappy, they back off. But there's a Frenchman who praises the "virility" of the immigrants, but when it's said about a white man, that's no good, it's Le Pen. Yet in his heart, I feel sure that he suspects it will end in complete chaos. But he prefers to live like an ostrich.

Like the discussion at Mejliss, this goes on and on. It's very interesting, but the main question still remains: What will really happen when the tipping point has been reached? Will the French wait until that happens, then rebel in violence? Violence can be prevented by sane immigration policies, a refusal to build mosques and an affirmation of nationalism, if not Christianity. If violence does erupt it will be chaotic and directed at the "collaborators" as much (possibly more?) as towards the Muslims.

One recurring theme is that despite outward passiveness, the French, in general, know that violence will come. This seems to indicate a higher level of awareness on the part of the population than is generally acknowledged. Notice that the Muslims calmly plot the takeover without any thought of a rebellion from the natives.


Please don't hide behind Von Hayek, his early works were promising but later he went populist, because he wished at least part of his theories to be realized in practice. This is called compromise. Today we have different situation,  pressure of the left pushing "compromise" more and more in their direction. The same about moral values.

You wrongly assume that I advocate anarcho-capitalism, this is something different from classical liberalism which approve existence of the state. Clasical liberalism allow the state to create army, police and organize courts. On other hand anarcho-capitalism push everything to private sector.

We know that in democratic states bureaucracy grow faster than in monarchy or even communism (Poland is an example!).   Could you name one democratic state that reversed this tendency and reduced bureaucracy?  There is visible corelation, states with more liberal economy (no matter what political system) are more prosperous.

>I cannot agree with such opinion that nationalism is healthly solution to  solve the problem with multiculturalism. You are playing with fire ans using Christianity to justify your views. I think that this is time to apply reasonable immigration policy rather than encouraging nationalism. One should feel healthy difference between patriotism and nationalism. That is I oppose democracy, people in mass are more likely to be ruled by emotions than elites.

You accusse Bastiat that he seat closer to socialist. My answer was aprociette because I see that you trying to make him guilty by some kind of assotiation. If Bastiat did missionarry job among socialists then this only add him more virtue. As far as economy is concentrated I definetely share more opinions with Bastiat than most of those French monarchists at that time.

I see that you switched a bit your position concentrating free market. At the beginning you want to reduce it to some civilizational borders and struggled to back this opinion with reasonable argument. Now you claim that Ricardo wished to reduce free trade to some group of states on the same level of development. So I understand that you are in favour of free trade of western European states with Japan or Korea but oppose free trade with  Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia or Georgia. Am'I right? This would be a logical consequence of sticking  to such  policy, policy that I don't approve as well. This would be suicide for my country for sure.

@Monarchist, KO and pale rider

It is Friedrich Hayek, not Friedrich "von" Hayek which is used by his opponents as a way of disparaging him, such people generally ignore titles of nobility were abolished in Austria following the end of WWI. I would want to add I do not endorse Hayek's views on minimum wages, I think it belongs to the same category Hayek redundantly identifies in "The Road to Serfdom" or "The Constitution of Liberty", namely well-meaning people who ignore the consequences of their policies and are guided by irrational feelings instead of reason, and thus do wrong whilst convinced of abetting others. Most of the time, however, Hayek's ideas are praiseworthy, in my humble opinion.

I have never ascribed anarcho-capitalism to you, I have just said some of your assertions were pandering to it. I perfectly know the difference between classical liberals, anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, conservative liberals and so on. Again, I used to be a classical liberal. I share many of your ideology's ideals absent the fact you are too focused on economics, which precludes you from envisioning different fields, for there are connections between economics, philosophy, demographics and culture, which are actually coterminous and assume cohesiveness when dealing with all of them.

I know at least of two democratic states which reduced bureaucracy of late, that is to say Sweden (which admittedly had a long way to go) and Canada (whose public spending has been gradually dwindling and roughly matches that of the U.S. nowadays). Bureaucracy is never something that is given, public choice theories do not always come true. However, I agree with your assertion that liberal economics usually allows to cut bureaucracy, again, I am no enemy of liberal economics, I only want it to comply with other goals. I do not set much store by the idea that economics in itself is a suitable end.

Perhaps I ought to define which meaning nationalism bears to my eyes. Nationalism quite simply embodies national supremacy, sovereignty of national peoples, sovereignty of national parliaments or crowns (and so on according to different regimes). Nowhere did I say I wanted nationalism to be turned into national tenets to be followed to the letter, I would rather have it as a sort of ingrained habits encouraging to propinquity between fellow countrymen sharing the same culture, language, history and willing to live together to enjoy this very inheritance. Nationalism does not necessarily go hand in hand with hatred of foreigners as is all too often assumed. Something strikes me in your last comment; whilst you gladly disparage bureaucracy you say elites are better guides than peoples owing to a purported lesser propensity to be ruled by emotions, what are bureaucracies if not elites effectively in control of ever-growing patches of our personal lives? Monarchies have not prevented bureaucracies from growing, for in Napoleon III's reign in France (1852-1870), bureaucracy kept burgeoning. Democracy seems to me a surest form of government, although I do not begrudge the British their constitutional monarchy.

Bastiat held conflicting views as to different topics, he was not so liberal when rejecting colonization in Algeria only on financial grounds, and not because of a yearning for liberty. He did not quite perform an efficient missionary work amidst erstwhile socialists if one considers the fact today's French socialists are amongst the most illiberal throughout the West (bar perhaps Wallonia's socialists who are even worse).

Again, free markets are basically the most efficacious economic structure, they are likely to be widely efficient and democratic. There is no way I would challenge these views, and this I have been saying from the outset of our debate. Civilizational areas and areas of similar economic development often mesh, as it happens. Free trade should be applied within the West, including Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In these cases, culture and comparable levels of economic performance converge, albeit countries such as Poland, Romania or Russia may be less advanced, they still are economies whose patterns resemble those of the West in spite of the need for significant improvements. Besides, we need Russian oil and natural resources. Japan, although culturally different, could be associated ('of' rather than 'in') due to comparable standards and advanced economic maturity. Belarus remains a largely Soviet economy and a quasi-dictatorship, it has no inclination to pursue trade contracts and therefore is not to be comprised. I see no reason not to include Ukraine and Georgia.

Out of sheer curiosity; which country are you from?

@KO: Thanks for the link, it is quite an interesting blog for sure.

@pale rider: I see our views concur concerning P2V, he is my favourite French politician, although not devoid of personal flaws, I, for one, wish he had more stamina and greater endowments as to his rhetoric.


Obviously I don't care whether Austrian democrats abolished titles of nobility. It only expose their inferiority complex. I refuse to obey to such leftist rhetoric which claims that one should be ashamed of aristocratic origin.

I'm not into Canadian politics, so I cannot comment. However it is beyond me how could you write about bastion of socialism called Sweden. Sweden would be socialist even without the EU. The latter is indeed a decided here and it is preaching bureaucracy worse than Soviet one. Sweden could not reduce bureaucracy because they are part of the EU and they are obligated to introduce all directives and regulations from Brussels.

As far economy is concentrated, our views are very different and I have nothing to add.

Surprisingly I noticed that French conservative anti-establishment parties failed to convince French voters and won just few seats. This is anyway better performance than in my native Poland where only parties which support Treaty of Lisbon managed to qualify. All parties which reject the treaty gathered about 4%. This is great success of our young democracy.

best regards


1. Nationalist is a radical and this is not conservative approach. Where did the pope encouraging nationalism recently?

Also, there is no such thing like national pride. This is logical mistake, one can be proud only from his own achievements and ashamed of his own wrongdoings. Being born somewhere in the world, this is non-archievement.

2. Bastiat was neither socialist or radical, so your reply is nonsensical

3. State was gaining more and more influence even in the age of monarchy. Only when democrats hijacked the power bureaucracy went crazy. Cyril Parkinson provide some interesting statistics in his satires against bureaucracy.

I'm curious how Ricardo could justify such racism. Comparative advantage theory don't leave a space for such irrational claims. How do you want to justify trade protectionism? Civilizational differences are not important here, because there is no permanent contact between two group of people. European trade, Arabs trade, Japanese trade as well. At this point different civilizations developed similar concepts, there is no a single reason to abstain from such cooperation.

I know personally some pro-free market nationalists, so there is no contradiction here. Although this is true that most of nationalist are socialistic.

Also I'm not a democrat and I don't believe that people are competent enough to decide about future of other people. I'm in favour of classical liberalism when people decide about their own fate.

Nations, liberalism and free trade 1/2

@ pale rider: Of course, I did not mean to justify nation as the supreme ideology, however, I wanted to make a case for belonging to a national polity a centrality. How could nations be possibly justified if it were not for the best interest of their respective peoples? Nations are objective realities: they rest on language, culture, history, and more importantly on the citizens' willing to live as a community, such facts meet with Lockean theory of social contract that justifies the state as the warrant of justice and collective security. I believe that in effect peoples should be able to decide through democratic decisions which policies they want their governments to pursue in the accomplishment of their interests. And I significantly differ from Monarchist's point of view that bids at justifying divine right as a source of power, whereas in my conception of things the state derives its legitimate powers from the consent of the governed. I am all for free markets nationwide, though they should be mitigated--which is, incidentally, not inconsistent with views held by classical liberals such as Friedrich Hayek who wished for minimum wages in order to secure internal social peace--regarding education for instance, as for the rest, I believe free markets are the best and most efficient form of economic organization. Only they should apply on a national basis, most of the time they are also efficient internationally but not when conditions differ so greatly. I challenge Monarchist to quote one single example of a country that throve on UNFETTERED free trade, for both Britain and the U.S., purported beacons of this theoretical model, prosperred whilst applying either high tariffs or limited protection. Theory is all good, evidence is quite another thing. Do not get me wrong: I want competition and free enterprise as a means of ensuring efficiency and prosperity, yet it would be both immoral and counter-productive to push for inexistent rules. Even Friedrich Hayek's pattern of spontaneous order implied a string of rules for markets, such rules would be simple enough for everyone to understand them but would exist none the less, which is quite different from complete lack of rules that rather panders to anarcho-capitalism. I am thus a capitalistic patriot wishing for free markets to a reasonable extent, precisely because free markets are largely democratic in their functioning.
Concerning supranational bodies, such structures are illegitimate in that they do not require consent from the part of the governed but function in discretionary ways, outside established rules. They wilfully ignore realities such as languages, customs, sovereignty or civilizations, which account for their evident failing when dealing with internal problem from a globalized point of view. The IMF purports to be defending free markets whilst doing the opposite by infringing upon national markets for the putative sake of stabilizing them, therefore implicitly acknowledging solutions by dint of state intervention, and destroying the very basis of their own philosophy. Some classical liberals are quite aware of the problem, and feel their philosophy can only lead to eventual self-destruction if tenets are to be enforced until the end without taking into account varying environments and contexts.
I am not a proponent of FN. My favourite party still remains Mr. De Villiers' "Mouvement Pour la France", which stands for more realistic economic solutions, whilst the FN stubbornly advocate socialistic measures as means to redress France's economy, the kind of so-called solutions which were already used in the past with disastrous fallouts. The MPF is resolutely pro-Christian (and does not belong to the self-proclaimed New Right) and in favour of a pattern most resembling family capitalism with strong incentives for individuals to compete and do to the utmost of the ability. None the less, one should not be delured into thinking Mr. De Villiers is so attached to economic freedom, I challenge you to find a single party that defends such things in France, definitely one of the most socialistic countries all over the world.
Best regards.

@ KO: thank you very much, I also greatly relish the occasion to debate persons whose own knowledge is quite appreciable in spite of our differences.

RE: Nations, liberalism and free trade 1/2

RW, thanks a lot for your most interesting and excellent reply. I really have nothing to add to what you wrote, I think we're pretty much on the same page. I also entirely agree with you on the Mouvement pour la France. I have read about Mr. De Villiers, watched interviews with him, and I've read the entire MPF platform in French. I think that on an ideological level, his party more closely resembles my political views than any party in Flanders, although I'm likely to be much more capitalist in economic matters (the Europrofiler test seems to confirms this). I wish P2V all the best in the current elections.

@ KO: thanks for your kind words. This is a great website and I consider it a privilege to be able to participate in discussions on this site with so many like-minded people.

Nations, liberalism and free trade 2/3

@ Monarchist: (1) I talked about nations and nationalism as an ideology committed to the prosperity of corresponding polities, I do not stand for nations as ends in themselves but much rather as means to pursue ends. I am no supporter of Hegelian philosophy and Mussolini's statements that the nation should overcome individuals, I rather see individuals as supreme entities who still interact within a national framework that influences their norms, behaviours, conceptions and so on. Nations thereby have significant impact on individual entities, denying such influences is akin to denying a bird its feathers and wings. For the purpose of demonstrations, the French have been brought up in a climate of equalitarianism and Jacobinism which are accepted but by little parts of French society, only individuals with significant individual personalities eschew such misconceptions, and I pride myself in having achieved to escape the scourge of intellectual error such as exposed above. I reckon that, by now, you will have realized you have been ascribing another meaning to my words that the one I intended them to deliver. As for the Pope, I do not recognize his authority as a self-anointed prelate considering my own Protestant penchants. So, I could not care less what the Pope says is right or wrong according to his latest whim, I have no allegiance to a hierarchy and popery that often swerves from the message of God, and all too often goes astray in the meanders of politics.
(2) Nowhere did I say Bastiat was a socialist. Neither did I accuse him of radicalism. I just pointed out the fact that he used to seat with socialists in the French Assembly rather than with monarchists that occupied most of the other part of the political spectrum at that time. Once again you did not understand my words, either because you did not read carefully enough, or you had already decided to misconstrue them. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and opt for the first option. I do not intend to argue or grapple with other persons on the website, I am just trying to make a case for what I think to be the best solution, and I would not dream of speaking on behalf of the French people concerning all the matters dealt with in my successive comments.
(3) I cannot see why Ricardo was racist in stipulating free trade was another means of leading Western nations to be most amenable in order to work with each other. After all, there was a commonality in much fields, although not bound by language, such societies--to some extent--widely stood for comparable values and were derived from the same Hellenic and Latin roots, albeit differing in their respective cultures. Comparative advantage as described in Ricardo's book "Principles of Political Economy" applies only to selected instances. Such instances, as far as I remember, were only applied to Western nations such as England, Portugal, France and Poland, everyone who actually read the book will keep in mind the example of Portuguese wine versus England cloth. It is not so surprising than the case for free trade was just made concerning nations whose levels of economic development converged. When China and the West apply largely differing rules today, such competition is made unvalid owing to various regulations that do not overlap whatsoever. There is only one instance in which TOTAL free trade would be not only possible but desirable, that in which countries apply the same rules. Same rules would make the case for subsequent competition to determine assets detained by either side, and effectively justify total free trade. Needless to say such objectives are largely unattainable nowadays owing to overt gaps in national conceptions of work ethos, protection of borders, economic levels of development, and so on. When different rules apply to different polities, I cannot see where is the point in wanting everyone to adopt the same trading system in such a mulish manner. I am not justifying dearth of co-operation between various civilizations, in the opposite, I am all in favour of developing trade bonds but as long as everyone accepts to abide by the same rules, absent them, I still hope for further co-operation yet with concomitant provisos aiming at bridging the gap. You may want to reconsider Ricardo's theory which also implied zero transportation costs and absence of technical progress.

Read VFR

RW: There are two themes in your writing which you should pursue on Lawrence Auster's outstanding blog, View from the Right at www.amnation.com/vfr. First, the necessity of non-liberal social foundations for classical liberalism to function in a society. Second, the complex order of reality in which people are, at the same time, individuals and members of various collectivities. Auster is the best writer I have run into on these two themes and I think you would benefit from reading him. He calls his approach traditionalism, though personally I think realism is the more accurate term. Now and then Auster corresponds with Paul Belien; that is their transatlantic alliance.

Nations, liberalism and free trade 3/3

As for states and cumbersome bureaucracies, I cannot see why they should necessarily mesh. Once again, I remind you of historical evidence pointing to light regulation from states (Sweden until the 1950s, the U.S. before F. D. Roosevelt's era) without big bureaucracy. I am as much in favour of significantly pruning bureaucracy as you are. Precisely because large bureaucracies are systematically supported by taxpayers at the expense of society, for they embody an improductive organ, and, as I have already told you, I am a stark proponent of low taxes. Outside prerogatives such as security from outside as well as inside foes, justice and--to some extent--the building up of infrastructure (supported by Adam Smith, the most famous classical liberal), I do not wish for state intervention, bar extraordinary circumstances or partnerships regarding education and healthcare. As for social assistance, it is a function that I tend to ascribe to families as a means to reinforce morals as well as personal responsibility and natural solidarity (as opposed to coerced solidarity such as embodied by the state's theft of 45 % of GDP in France). There dwells my conservatism, which, again, is not inconsistent with a strong sense of the nation's prerogatives, and an acknowledgment of the centrality thereof. Pro-market nationalists do not necessarily support free trade precisely because of the feeling their own kin should be put before interests emanating from abroad. Encouraging parochialism does not preclude one from trading with other nations, even the fiercest protectionists (proponents of autarky) acknowledge nations are bound to trade with other national entities because they lack resources on their own territory.
I cannot see how people could only shape their own destinies through classical liberalism better than with democracy. Their preferences would admittedly be reflected in the bulge in prices, which is why free markets are basically the most democratic institution there has ever been, but a minority of well-to-do people could--through these very preferences--impact on other people's lives by influencing prices for, say, staples or basic commodities. Whatever you do, whatever the system, there is always heteronomy. I will confess something, Monarchist; I used to be a classical liberal, which is why I can talk about Hayek, Smith, Ricardo, Friedman and many others with such accuracy. All made mistakes, some made some amendments to the core philosophy to fit their personal views: Smith even conceded the need for the state to care for education, and justified nationalization of certain industries vital to the national interest, Ricardo mitigated his free trade ideals with unvalid hypotheses, whilst arguing for co-operation only within the 'civilized world', Friedman failed in proving his quantity money theory outside cases such as hyperinflation or long-term trends, Hayek wished for minimum wages to maintain existing social orders and acknowledged the need for planning in times of war. If you followed the logic where it really ends, you would be an anarcho-capitalist, I realized it by dint of reading such authors, classical liberalism remains a consensus alternative as compared with absolute liberalism such as embodied by anarcho-capitalists (or endorsed by most libertarians these days). Refuting the conclusions of the latter version makes your ideas void or prone to suffer from gaping holed owing to inconsistencies logically entailed by the need for accomodation and consensus. Hayek himself refused to be called a conservative in his famed essay "Why I am not a Conservative", embracing classical liberalism and opposing it to conservatism due to the latter's defence of traditional values and pragmatism concerning economic policies. As I said, I still have a bias in favour of free markets, but free trade is quite another matter when applied globally, and dogmas can easily be debunked in the face of adverse situations. By sustaining constant tenets because those are thought to define liberty in the best way is tantamount to relinquish liberty, as you willingly surrender your thoughts to the benefit of frozen concepts, liberty of conscience thus disappears. Friedrich Hayek himself warned his readers against such hazards by writing people should not forgo reflection for the sake of expediency and intellectual sloth, for they risked ending up in an old philosopher's thrall, slaves to a recondite ideology.

Should France finally

Should France finally succumb to the Islamic hordes, they will have control of its nuclear weapons programme. In such a scenario, this will be used as a threat to subjugate the whole of Europe from within the borders of France itself.

This cannot be permitted to happen.

There is indeed one way in which Europe can be largely redeemed and recovered at a later date, but it would involve the evacuation of young and able-bodied indigenous white Europeans into set-aside safe havens and then necessarily followed by a blitzing of the European continent and her enclaves with a combination of biological, biochemical and low-yield nuclear weaponry.

Unfortunately, the old, infirm and severely handicapped would have to be sacrificed.


1. By the way. Christianity should not be closely associated with nationalism. Catholic means universal. Some people closely associate Christianity with religious version of Marxism? They say that Jesus was the first communist. There is no much of good from self-proclaimed Christians who treat church's teaching with distance.

2. Please read political programm of NSDAP. It is defitely socialist with a great dose of racist hatred.

3. I mentioned Bastiat only because he was French... His ideas was later developed by so called Austrian school of economy. I think that you should consider to buy some book from these circles and learn about arguments if favour of free market economy before you reject it.

4. There is no such thing like "minimum involvemnet of the state in economy". This is real delusion, if state is involved, it is heavily involved.

@pale rider

5. This is true that politicians claim to be Christians and act otherwise. However this doesn't means that trurly Christian politician should abstain from refering to Christianity.

6. I would wish Christians in this very forum cared at all about fate of Christians in Levant. We can read here all the time about anti-Semitism elsewhere but nobody have a courage to mention about oppression of Arab Christians by both Muslims and Jews.

@ Monarchist

Hi Monarchist, I agree with what you wrote in response to my message. I also totally agree with your first point. There are times when faith is is more important than ethnicity or nationality. When forced to choose, I prefer my faith above all else. It is simply too important a part of my identity, and it defines my person. On the other hand, Christianity played an immensely important role in shaping the nations of the West, so it's not surprising that nationalism or reactionary sentiment often go hand in hand with Christianity to oppose those who wish to destroy the Western tradition. So it's not necessarily wrong for nationalism and Christianity to go hand in hand, it's just that one should not forget that Christianity was equally meant for those who wish to destroy us. The irony is that the biggest enemy of Christianity in the West today may not really be Islam, but rather those of our own kind who sometimes still claim to be "Christians". The fight against Islam is not a defense of the decadent lifestyles of Westerners. We are not going to win the battle if people do not also give up on their superficial postmodern idols. Best regards.

Islam is NOT Public Enemy No. 1

Pale Rider, I couldn't agree more. Islam and Islamic jihad would be non-issues if the West were not self-mutilated by multi-cultural, anti-white, apologetic liberalism and a universalism that makes it impossible for Western peoples to assert their own identities. It is liberalism that makes us weak; Islam is only a parasite that takes advantage of our self-induced weakness.

Free markets and liberalism

1-Christianity and nationalism are in effect closely associated, if you had read Samuel P. Huntington's outstanding book "Who Are We? The Challenges to American National Identity", and seen the last figure on the last pages (World Values Survey), you would have another idea of the connection between national pride and the importance of god. It is not by any chance that most patriots are also devout believers in their respective faiths, for religion is a salient element of tradition, and therefore national identity. I am not saying non-believers cannot be honest patriots, but the odds are lower than they be so.
2-I have read Bastiat, and I am sorry to say, although I greatly enjoyed his pamphlets directed at socialists and cartels, he did not convince me entirely. I may remind you of something you (wilfully?) forgot: Bastiat was an MP for the French Assembly, and he used to seat amongst socialists and radicals. I highly doubt Bastiat could be used as a beacon of conservatism, which is the main ideology this website claims. Besides, his defence of universalism is a deeply flawed element of French character.
3-Small government has been a consistent and permanent trait of most European economies before WWII, not so long ago, Sweden still was one of the freest countries all over the world, historical evidence suggests small government has been the norm for centuries. Big governments are a recent creation. You keep eschewing my point about the U.S. thriving throughout most of the 19th century by dint of high tariffs, which makes me assume you cannot parry it (would that suffice to make the U.S. a socialist country?). You also continue ignoring that civilizations which used free trade were also the most advanced on a technological basis, which still fits the facts today for Europe, but free trade such as applied in past decades ignores nowadays' realities, such as China's dramatic surge. Obviously, job losses due to free trade have but little impact, it would be dishonest to deny it, the real problem is we are being gradually stripped of industrial activities, replaced by immaterial wealth created by immaterial activies, such as finance. Such activies allow growth only on the short run, look at Britain's state of decrepitude; it has been overrelying on finance (8 to 10 % of its GDP) without paying attention to other fields, needless to remind you of the upshot. Even David Ricardo argued free trade could only be possible within the "civilized world", which he meant to be Western Europe. I still prefer nation as an ideology rather than free trade which--in its extreme application--leads to regrettable consequences. I much rather believe economic socialism is appraised by the level of government spending, which is about 45% of GDP in France, and around 30% in the U.S. Both are levels that--to different extents--discourage economic productivity and activity, and lessens fiscal receipts (owing to Laffer's curve). Free trade is an internationalist motto that contradicts nationalism, and sells entire patches of a country to foreigners, whilst I support inner free enterprise, low taxes, and even privatisation of certain fields, I cannot relinquish education (which should aim at instilling national and patriotic values, while also maintaining free education for parents willing to do so) or healthcare (which I would like to see shared between the private and the public sectors) and a grip on energy and defence industries, but as for the rest, I do not care (I, for one, want to abolish farm subsidies). Each country and its population are entitled to decide which policy best fits their purposes and national interests, it is the very basis of democracy, and thus free to shape such policies in a similar manner. Imposing upon unwilling people (even Americans are against free trade by a majority of 55%) free trade is as authoritarian as the EUSSR you are accustomed to exposing regularly if not daily. As it happens, most nations refuse such policies which put national sovereignty into jeopardy. Surely there is no right on the part of unelected international organizations, such as the EU, IMF, WTO to shape national policies, international law, and a fortiori customary international law have no legitimacy at all.

Free markets and liberalism (2)

Hi RW, I take it that this was a response to Monarchist, but I'd still like to reply anyway.

I pretty much agree with your third point. I agree that the free market (or free trade, rather) shouldn't be state ideology. However, I'm not sure whether I can agree about the nation being the ultimate ideology either. After all, how can the 'nation' be defined as an 'ideology'? I think what you really mean is that trade policy should be a matter of national sovereignty, where people through representative government can determine what is best for the nation. I generally am very much in favor of free trade, and there is no question that I support the free market system. However, I first and foremost believe in a national free market, and [free] trade deals should be made between the individual nations rather than dictated by supranational bodies like the IMF which manipulate money and diminish the sovereignty of free nations derived by the people. In that, I entirely agree with your criticism of said organizations.

As for the FN, I must admit it's not a party I'd readily vote for if I were a Frenchman. In matters of economics, the FN has often voiced its opposition to the free market and with its roots in the New Right ideology, which sees Christianity as a totalitarianist religion and threat to the peoples of Europe, I must say I remain skeptical of the party. It's true that lots of traditional and strongly nationalist Catholics support the party, but then again, I have seen that type of people myself, and as a member of a native minority (being Protestant) in Flanders, I must say that I'm not at all thrilled by some of the views these people hold. My impression of the FN is that it is a party that is too illiberal and would not leave much room for individual liberty and responsibility. Although true liberty requires moral order, it does not require a state religion or nationalist ideology. The nation is not a dead ideology with a set of man-made ideas, but a living entity, formed by history, rooted in tradition, and for its survival it must be guided by God-given and universal morality rather than by fallible human ideas or ideals.

Best regards.


To give credit where due, it is delightful to have intelligent and well-informed contributors like pale rider and RW posting on this website.

It is not because someone

It is not because someone makes reference to God or Jesus that this person is a Christian. The current president of the United States also claims to be a Christian. But so does Alan Keyes, and this man outright opposes virtually everything Obama stands for. Hitler also liked to refer to Christianity and Jesus in many of his speeches, but at the end of the day he was merely interested in the Germanic races and allied the Muslim forces who had previously invaded and destroyed parts of Christian Europe. I have seen a lot of ultranationalist Catholic extremists in Flanders who like to claim that only Roman Catholicism is the appropriate religion for Flanders. Sure, there's a lot to agree about on, but at the end of the day only their vision is the correct one and you are treated as a second rank Fleming for not being Roman Catholic. I have also seen folks supporting Catholicism or Chrsitianity in general and associate it so strongly with their ethnicity that they would not even care about the plight of Christians in barbaric Muslim countries. On the contrary, out of their hatred for the Jews (which they conveniently portray as Anti-Zionism), they would even sympathize with barbarian regimes such as the one in Iran because they oppose 'Zionism' and still execute homosexuals there. So quite frankly, I must say that I laugh at a lot of these ultranationalists who claim to defend Western civilization because they don't represent Christianity and the views they hold are inane and would lead to a collectivistic society with the Nation as the ideology, in which there is no room left for individual Christian liberty and responsibility. With people like the ones I described, you can be sure that even Huguenots would have to get out of France even though Calvinism is traditionally and historically part of France and its heritage. At least De Villiers is a souverainiste out of conservative persuasian, and so is his defense of [Judaeo-]Christian family values. He's about the only person in France I would vote for. I would never be able to support the New Right or Catholic supremacists without feeling remorse.

EDIT: please don't mistake what I wrote for Catholic-bashing. De Villiers and ALan Keyes are both Catholics and I generally find myself very much in agreement with their views. I just wanted to point out that *some* of those on the Far Right that claim to defend Christianity or Western civilization might not be the kind of people you'd really want to govern your nations.

Demographic shift - an islamic gift!

Fore warning is possible if one heeds to the situation in India. There, in 1947 at the time of dismemberment, the islamic populaiton was merely 9%. Now it is more than 19%. In some states like U.P, where Rahul Gandhi won the elections (not the dalit woman Mayawati's party), that percent is as high as 33%.

Incidentally, Mayawati remarked sadly that the muslims in her party won not any others. She blamed the islamic voters for betraying her. (The same state jailed Varun Gandhi the other grandson of Nehru for voicing his concern over too many abduction of Indian women by islamic criminals. He was even refused bail).

@ Monarchist

So, tell me what is socialist in Mr. Le Pen's manifesto? Absent protectionism, I cannot see many elements of that stripe. Besides, I would rather have a patriotic protectionist than a 'conservative' traitor bowing to whatever foreigners demand. You should not take such principled views on free trade; the United States throve owing to the lack thereof during the 19th century. For a more comprehensive view, read this:
Limitation of foreign trade does not mean you are not preaching for internal free enterprise, and free markets economics to some extent.
As for the MPF, there is absolutely no way it is socialist. De Villiers defined himself as "100% anti-socialist" during the 2007 presidential campaign. He is a devout Catholic, advocates low taxes, estrangement from the EU, and would wish for numerous allowances to disappear. Yes, he was and always is in favour of protectionism, but only on an European scale (I would tend to include the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand in such an area). So what? It takes much more to make a socialist. Free trade is usually a good thing in economic terms, it allows significant purchase power for consumers, yet it should not be practiced at the expense of our nations, unless one has masochistic proclivities. As you will see in the article of the link above, David Ricardo himself wanted to limit free trade, and spoke only about "civilized world", thus nations sharing common values, and attaining given levels of economic development.


About FN

- against free trade. (I will comment this issue writing about De Villiers below)

- in favour of social benefits
- willing to subsidy "French" companies
- they are hardly willing to mention Christianity or Catholicism, apparently some words should not be used...

De Villiers

I agree with you that civilizationally alien emigrants should not be accepted. However this have little to to with trade. Catholic approach would be mutual cooperation aimed to increase comfort of living of involved sides. I mean individuals, because state owned companies should be privatized. If trade protectionism is so good why don't you advocate different provinces of France running such policy to protect interest of locals?
How would you explain De Villiers complains about Polish workers? If he complain about fellow Catholic and what is more temporary workers then how much more protectionist one could be? I don't know much about his party but he sounds like French Pat Buchanan. He have some good points but this is not somebody who honestly deserve to run a state.
Anyway, thanks for interesting reply.

@ Monarchist

About FN:
You are right about the first three points that I will therefore not challenge, however, I persist in thinking it takes more than some economic elements to turn nationalists into socialists. On the other hand, Christianity or Catholicism shine through Le Pen's speeches, for he is himself a devout Catholic, and so are significant patches of his electorate. References to God or Christian values abound in the said speeches. Besides, other influent members, like Bruno Gollnisch, regularly organize pro-life demonstrations. I reckon it is unjust to deny the FN one of its very bases.

About De Villiers:
Aliens should not only be rejected, but also expelled as soon as possible. Indeed De Villiers has been advocating mutual co-operation in order to secure economic development for Africa, yet that is something I do not support personally. I am not in favour of the splitting up of France in different provinces to this purpose, for a very simple reason: Protectionism can only be functional in sufficiently big areas as both history and common sense say (how would we get by the required resources to make such plans workable without concomitant territories?). I advocate partial adoption of protectionism in order to preserve national independence which could be threatened if, say, the Chinese or the Saudis bought entire lumps of our energy industry, just as the Australians rejected China's bids for some of their mining industries on grounds of national security. On the other hand, I disagree with De Villiers on Polish workers, precisely because they are fellow parts of the same great Western civilization and, as you pointed out, most of them will not be permanently living in France (which would not be such a trouble considering they could rapidly adapt to our country). As a matter of fact, De Villiers also supports low taxes, and free enterprise. Those are definitely not socialist values.

To be quite honest with you, neither Le Pen nor De Villiers deserve to be our head of state in my humble opinion but I am afraid they are yet the best hopes we have for no-one else will condemn immigration. I believe economics comes only second to this gigantic issue, albeit I would not dream of denying its fundamental aspect, I am myself studying economics to some extent. The day French politicians openly advocate free markets policies, I am likely to faint owing to overwhelming surprise. (So ingrained are jacobinism and economic illiteracy amongst the ruling elite.) Thanks as well for the debate!


1. I have read long article about approach of FN towards religion from a reliable source. Author wrote that even if some members of FN privately claim to be Catholic, party rhetoric in general abstain from references to Christianity. Their opposition to abortion is justified mainly by nationalist reasons.

2. One person may be both nationalist and socialist. These two views doesn't exclude each other, the most famous and radical one was Adolph Hitler.

3. Pat Buchanan want protectionism for the US, you wish for France, some posters here would welcome such policy in Belgium or Netherlands. One can suspect that this is not question of honest economic calculation or big enough areas, just nationalist wishful thinking. Does 'Bastiat' is definitely death in France?

4. Security is just another excuse for the state to be involved in business. Chinese buying up Australian mining industry to "destroy" Australia? This is just political fantasy.

@ Monarchist

1-I know myself FN supporters galore, every one of them is a fierce Catholic, and closely associates Christianity with nationalism. Both Mr. Le Pen and Mr. Gollnisch are devout Catholics. They justify abortion owing to nationalistic reasons, that is for sure, but I think they are honest in their defence of the sanctity of life.
2-I never implied nationalism and socialism were incompatible. Hitler's NSDAP as socialist can be doubted, for there were many currents within the party, including neo-paganist tendencies (best embodied by Himmler), Hitler's biography by Ian Kershaw is enlightening as regards such matters. The reason national-socialists wanted to erase Christianity is simple: it contained Jewish elements in its very foundations, whence the need for Nazis to wipe out what they used to call "the inner Jew". Feel free to doubt Mr. Le Pen's Catholicism, but Mr. De Villiers' cannot be doubted, for he already made public statements as to it, and it is sufficient to distinguish such men from national-socialists.
3-I would rather be a nationalist than an obsessive neocon gawking at free markets and globalization, wilfully ignoring the fallouts of such policies, putting national economy and independence into jeopardy. Bastiat never had many followers in France, and he wrote his pamphlets in the 19th century, perhaps it is time to move on.
4-The said premices that the Chinese aimed at purchasing were located nearby military bases serving for experiments, which could have endangered Australia's security. If I generally agree with your statement that the state should be as absent from the economy as possibly, complete separation is mere delusion.

Forewarned is fore-armed

Thanks to Miriam for her warning. Any non-Moslem government with half a brain should know there is NO place for Moslems in a non-Moslem country because Moslems have a religious duty to subdue non-Moslems, whether by extermination, subjugation, or conversion. Apparently the political class the world over consists almost uniquely of idiots. To speculate, I suggest an utter lack of moral imagination that assumes in all others the indifference towards religious duties they feel in themselves. God save us from the idiots that now rule!

Quite possible

The islamic usurpers have a whole lot of patience. In India, they are in virtually in power via mobocracy and terrorism. If something the officials do is not to the liking of the islamic mobs, all it takes is for any honcho to say, "There will be dire consequences!" Immediately the government bows to the wish.

The govt of India pays the muslims for their haj trip to saudistan out of public funds taken from temple endowments! Isnt that ridiculous and absurd? It is like USA paying Hindus to go on a pilgrimage to Varanasi, the oldest city on earth.

This may happen in France and other EU nations if you are not careful..

A monarchy of sorts

But, Monarchist, if a future Grand Mufti of Morbihan is eventually elevated to the position of Caliph, France gets its absolute monarchy back, so (for you) what is the downside her?

France's already lost

Why France is already lost:
- the youth is overwhelmingly socialist (I believe I will be the only one [bar two other fellows] to vote for a truly right-wing party in my whole university).
- France has been resting on an intellectual mistake since the 1789 French Revolution: the French believe in universalism, they think everyone has a natural yearning to join their culture, which is to them the grandest and the most magnificent. Such an imbecility allows them to let in millions of migrants because they all reckon we are 'citizens of the world'. (Yesterday I was at odds with friends using the term, and needless to say they refuse to realize there is a real world out there.)
- France is one of the most economically socialistic countries in the West, perhaps only beaten by Belgium (the Walloon part at least) and Sweden, which means the state possesses extensive control over the economy and our means of subsistance. Need I remind you France's elite is just as corrupt as everywhere else in the West, that is they effectively could control our lives if a totalitarian regime were to settle in Paris.
- France has already been under siege for decades; owing to the philosophical features of universalism, it has accepted tremendous numbers of migrants from North Africa and central Africa, that is from its former colonies. Most of them are not counted in statistics because ethnic statistics are banned in France, and substantial patches of that population naturalized. (So that they could rely yet more intensely on welfare benefits.) By then, I can tell Paris is on the verge--if not already--of becoming a non-French majority city. In my own region, Muslims are awfully numerous, too (and their demographics are as dynamic as ever). What I mean is we have got too many of them to reverse the trend. If we offered migrants subsides to allow them to leave, (1) I fear they would come back as soon as possible to have that subsidy again (it already occurred with some Gipsies), (2) by their sheer numbers, they would lead France to utter bankruptcy (a prospect we are already facing due to our decaying nanny state).
- The French are disarmed: they have not got the ability to defend themselves any more. Of course, such a situation exists in most of Europe. It is why the U.S. have such a huge advantage over us; if threatened by from within or from outside they could retaliate with the full might and wrath of millions of U.S. citizens standing for their lives and birthrights. Such a thing is most unlikely to happen on this continent. In Takuan Seiyo's words, the French have become Pods.

I, for one, honestly cannot see a way out of this predicament, for I know the French character, I know it is prone to accept guidance. By contrast, the English-speaking peoples are much more self-reliant, and I am sure Britain will prove--in 4 days--it can rise up again. If you had lived in France so long as I do, you would have no different opinion. Trust me, if the French are ever to survive, they will but elsewhere. Hopefully France will teach other Europeans a lesson so that they truly understand the nature of Islam.


Truly right-wing party in France? What is their name?

Grand Mufti of Morbihan? At last some respect deserving enemy!
There is still hope for Christian Europe. We must immediately and unconditionally surrender to Liechtenstein. This idea could gain some supporters even in France. :))


@ Monarchist: Yes, I can see at least two truly right-wing parties in France: Philippe De Villiers' Mouvement Pour la France [MPF] and Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National [FN].

@ KO: Hopefully you are right, for I cannot see any daring politician doing the job. It is certainly not I alone, a student amongst many others, who will be able to drive entire crowds! As I said, one remedy could be to allow the French to bear arms in order to defend themselves, that would be a serious step toward preventing dhimmitude.


Recently Polish conservative website translated political program of FN. I read it and this is nothing else but national socialism. Such party cannot qualify to right-wing camp. MPF? I did not have a pleasure to learn about them as much, however I have heard that they are socialist as well. De Villiers advocated protectionism in the past.

Lost France

RW, unfortunately I agree with every word of your assessment. I did not understand your assertion a couple of days ago that the French would fight back once they were pushed far enough. France is on its way to becoming a dhimmi state, as are Sweden and Britain. Severe economic conditions can destabilize the dhimmi state, but we know from the Communist experience that it is easier to maintain totalitarian domination of an exhausted, impoverished people than of an enterprizing, prosperous people. French patriots need to unite, arm themselves, speak out, and resist "le Troisième Empire," which is also "le nouveau Vichy." There are more fence-sitters than you realize who will come forward if others are bold.

The French will take

The French will take republican ideas to their graves. To be conquered by bunch of camel riding primitives, this is something that only democrats are capable to do. :) 

One of the troubles with Muslims taking over in 20-30 years...

One of the troubles with the Islamic idea of dominace through higher birth rates - is that they assume that every human being they produce will remain a Muslim.

Adherence to the Arabian God - is dependent largely on Islamic laws that force nationals of Islamic countries to remain Muslim -

For example in the Iranian parliament - it was reported that there is a million secret converts to Christianity - described as an 'exodus from Islam'

But on the statistics - those million Christians will be counted as being a part of the ever growing Islamic Umma -

And in typical repressive Islamic fashion - the Iranian parliament has passed a law 196-7 for the death penalty for apostates from Islam - the bill is waiting for the Ayatollah's - okay.

There are similar such law preventing people from leaving Islam - from Egypt to Malaysia (even Turkey - a few apostates are on trial for so-called insulting Islam - by leaving it)

But without such laws - forcing immigrants to remain Muslim - there will be a natural drift away from Islam - by the very people expected to uphold it.

I'd like to think a significant portion of these immigrants will one day support a secular society.

We already have ex-Muslim advocacy groups - and they are likely to get stronger as their member numbers grow. [Donations in their favor might help]


In order for the Islamic conquest to occur in 20 - 30 years - as these guys hope that the Arabian Allah will deliver - we will have to have a Taliban style insurgency in Europe - people would have to be driven by fear or some extreme - politically correct leadership.

At the moment politics is trending the opposite direction - in addition people are a bolder [even if they don't say so publicly] and that's because they know more about supremacist Islam aims.


What could happen - is that these ultra religious Islamic types - become impatient - as they did in Pakistan - when militant leader Sufi Muhammad said that they had been working on implementing the Shari'a for 20 years - to little or no effect - and that is the reason the turned to violent jihad. We could have this in Europe - a radical leader - seeing his life drift away - might want to take drastic action - to see his Shari'a dream for Europe realized.


We then have another scenario - that being the numbers - Muslims groups in large enough numbers can vote for - Shari'a law in areas of Europe - the main reason for the steep increase in Muslim numbers - is not entirely down to birth rate - it is down to the immigration - loophole - that at least some now have dared to close up -

- and that is every time a Muslim person marries in Europe - they have to go an collect a cousin - or close family connection from the old country -

So instead of one Muslim immigrant you now have two - then they have three children - when they grow up -

- each of these will - now marry someone from the old country - now instead of having three children - it now appears - in pure statistics - that the initial couple now has 6 children -

- but if we count from the single immigrant - that first person to take a partner from the old country - it may look like that single person has now changed into 7 people - it might even be said that he had seven children. The fact is 7 addition people have been added to the one immigrant -

No indigenous population can deal with this type of growth - and if we don't put a stop these passport marriages - as they have done in Norway - or curtailed the practise in Holland and France - then we could be faced with the mindset of North Africa - and all the 7th retrogression that goes with it - controlling parts of Europe - it is hard to believe they will every control it all

- according to Nostradamus there will be a war of sorts with Islam - where we are attacked from within from hidden Muslim armies - and form outside by Iran and North Africa - but it seems we win.

History lessons (2)

"[T]he French massacred the Muslim invaders at Poitiers..."


Kappert has already conceded elsewhere on this blogsite that " recommendations and resolutions" would not have prevented said Muslim invasion, so I find it difficult to see what other effective course of action the French had at their disposal. Does she?


1 - France as a single united entity did not exist at the moment the Poitiers battle took place, it is somewhat anachronical to resort to such an argument. However, Frankish tribes are technically our forebears, and tremendously contributed in shaping today's culture. I would rather invoke the French Revolution that reversed the course things were taking, and of course resulted in bloodshed. I, for one, am convinced such a bloodbath will occur once more, once the French are getting started, they cannot stop. There is a fundamental dearth of moderation in the French character, as compared to Lutheran peoples for instance. Perhaps such a trait could be useful for a change. Obviously, I am willing to escape such developments yet I believe this will be hardly feasible, and we will have no choice in the end but to retaliate once we have stomached the first blow.
2 - Of course, I have been advocating gun ownership for every French (and European): the Americans have a fundamental advantage over us in that firearms possession is ingrained within their character, and enshrined withing Amendment II. We, on the other hand, lack such traditions and liberties. As foreigners, you must understand the French state rests on an intellectual defectuosity called Jacobinism where the state is allowed to perform tasks that would be better off within the hands of individuals. I suggest that we reverse the trend, in some regards, my views are extremely marginal in France. I am far more likely to be incarcerated for disruption of public order or be dismissed as an utter fool convicted of the grossest imbecility rather than being hearkened to. The French are so deeply in love with the current establishment they wil not consent to being unplugged if not faced with seemingly indomitable hazards. I am sure France will awake sooner or later but, honestly, I fear it will be too late once it does. The surest way for me to escape the final demise of this country is emigration, either to the U.S. (where citizens will not be stripped of their birthrights so easily) or Australia (which is still secluded enough to avoid being overriden by undesirable aliens). Let's hope my English skills are sufficient to do so!

Soyez le bienvenu!

I would like to say you would be welcomed in the U.S.A., but you don't seem like a source of unskilled labor or a reliable Democratic voter. You will just have to keep fighting for justice in France. Vive PDV, vive la France!

What if there were no hope left for France?

I have been living in this country for 18 years, I have seen how dilapidated and corrupt it has become, as I travelled abroad, I realized other countries were not devoid of their own lot of black sheep, however, the situation in Germany seems a lot better than in France for instance. Muslims are not as welcomed as they once were, and more importantly, they are not as numerous. As for Australia, I am convinced if one day there are two Western nations left to carry on the struggle it will be the U.S. and Australia. I seem to remember Mark Steyn draws the same conclusions in "America Alone". What if there were no tomorrow for France? Even those Muslims on the corresponding link point to France's outstanding munificence for Muslims (the unskilled, unproductive and unassimilable Third World migrant).

history lessons

Well, the French massacred the muslim invaders at Poitiers, resisted the papal oligarchy by establishing the Pope in Avignon, got rid of huguenottes in the night of Bartholomeu, joined the ethnic cleansing by the nazis - so there is no way not to imagine a bloodbath in the future of France.

Yes, we know

As a Frenchman, if there is something I can tell you, it is we will not relinquish our homeland passively as is expected sometimes. Our history points to the contrary: the French are an enduring lot, they can sustain much obloquy before they eventually awake, but once they wake up, beware, for they cannot be stopped anymore. Look at the facts of the French Revolution: no-one would have guessed it would come to such bloodshed, decades ago you could not have ascertained whether there was a possibily for monarchy to be overthrown. Obviously, leftists and PC-multi-culti fetichists will not support us any soon yet they might one day reconsider once violence arouses many Frenchmen (who are already suspicious: one month ago I discussed with two of my parents' friends who were notoriously centre-left, and even they worried about Muslim scarves everywhere in the streets and the dearth of liberty shining through Muslims' behaviours). The problem is, we will not be able to prevent escalation of the conflict for you can rest assured the French will not withstand the enemy's advance before they have no other option left. Years of socialist rule (and now neo-socialist rule under Sarkozy) have turned the once gallant people of France into a gaggle of bleating sheep slowly going down the road to the slaughterhouse where the Crescent executioner awaits them in order to produce hallal food. I know only of two politicians who dare speak openly about the scourge of immigration: Philippe de Villiers and Jean-Marie Le Pen. I could only suggest to vote for one of them if the bloodbath that is foreseeable is to be eluded. Even official statistics acknowledge significantly higher fertility rates for foreigners (they may be French on the paper, but I will never consider them my fellow countrymen): 3 to 5-6 children per woman according to the origin (more for African women). This is truly a war of the womb where the enemy are under hijabs and procreate as soon as another baby is out. These women are factories, the output is children, and the goal is massive production of ordnance so as to overwhelm France (and Europe) once the minority turns into a majority. The French are not stupid (most of them are not, anyway), they feel inside themselves this is bound to happen anyhow, yet they will not openly acknowledge the situation, and would rather bid at some reconciliation attempts and useless stuff of that ilk. That's partially why I tend to be more sanguine about the European idea than most people on BJ: If we want to truly stand a chance, French, Germans, Spaniards, Italians, Poles, Britons, Greeks, everyone really must unite, at least for military purposes in order to eschew the plight that looms ahead.

RW: Won't the EU take the Moslems' side...

...in any attempt of European peoples to reverse Islamization and Third World immigration? After all, those are core policies of the EU and France, and the Franco-Islamic scheme for recovering empire goes back to De Gaulle, n'est-ce pas? Thus I am not sanguine about the role of the EU in protecting European peoples in the future. I am not even sanguine about the role of the French state and military in a popular struggle against Moslems. To tell the truth, I am not sanguine about the attitude of an American government towards European attempts to take back their countries. Frenchmen should arm themselves. They cannot depend on their institutions to protect their interests.