Archive | France

Subject: Muslims are under assault in France

Terror attacks in France over Muhammad images spark free speech debate


Dear editor,

Muslims in France fear for their lives as they are being constantly under assault. Their religious rights violated. Women are banned from wearing hijab or niqab, or burkini in public, their faith is maligned, and above all their beloved prophet is mocked. President Macron can not throw a snake into a cradle and then act surprised if the baby gets bit.”

As a result, we heard today the sad and news of the attack in France where a woman was beheaded by an attacker with a knife in the city of Nice. 
Last week, two Muslim women were stabbed repeatedly under the Eiffel Tower by two women who called them “dirty Arabs” One of the victims was stabbed six times and ended up with a punctured lung in the hospital, while the other victim had to undergo surgery on her arm. Macron fanned the flames of anti-Muslim bigotry in France by claiming, ‘Islam is a religion that is in crisis all over the world today.’ Since the beginning of 2020, Monsieur Macron has shut down dozens of mosques and religious institutions under the pretext that they promote extremism.

It should be noted here that mutilation is forbidden under Islamic law. It is also forbidden for a Muslim to mutilate a Muslim and a non-Muslim  A Muslim must not, therefore, mutilate another person or participate in such acts in any other way, such as by witnessing the event or approving of it.

When a California man deliberately plowed his car into a crowd of innocent pedestrians in 2019, he targeted the victims because he believed they were Muslims. According to an eyewitness at the scene, he heard the driver saying, ” thank you, Jesus’ again and again. After this tragic incident, No one blames the Bible or Christians on trial. 


Mahmoud El-Yousseph

Posted in France, Human RightsComments Off on Subject: Muslims are under assault in France

Muslims under assault in France


By Mahmoud El-Yousseph

Muslims in France fear for their lives as they are being constantly under assault. Their religious rights violated (women are banned from wearing hijab or niqab, or burkini in public,) their faith is maligned, and above all their beloved prophet is mocked. President Macron can not throw a snaked into a cradle and then act surprised if the baby gets bit.”
As a result, I read today about the sad and shocking news of the horrible attack in France where a woman was beheaded by an attacker with a knife who also killed two other people at a church in the French city of Nice. The mayor of the city described the attack as an act of terrorism. The knife attack took place near Notre Dame and that police shot and detained the attacker.
One week earlier, two Muslim women were stabbed repeatedly under the Eiffel Tower by two white women who called them “dirty Arabs” according to reports. The French police arrested two attackers. One of the Muslim women was stabbed six times and ended up with a punctured lung in the hospital. The other victim had to undergo surgery on her arm according to foreign media reports. Surprisingly, the police released the information only after three days and there was no condemnation expressed by either the French media or by President Macron. Macron fanned the flames of anti-Muslim bigotry in France and around the world by claiming, ‘Islam is a religion that is in crisis all over the world today.’ Since the beginning of 2020, Monsieur Macron has shut down 73 mosques and Muslim religious institutions under the pretext that they promote extremism.

Inline image

Not so fast. France has a long and bloody history against Muslims. France has, along with the US and the UK, carried out a series of military strikes involving aircraft and ship-based missiles against multiple targets in Syria during the Syrian Civil War that killed many innocent people. The same happened in Iraq and Libya. Let’s not forget that the French soldiers were recently engaged in gang rape against Muslim women and girls of all ages in Mali and the Central African Republic, not to mention bombing mosques inside Mali while worshippers were inside. France is equally guilty of imposing a sanction on Iraq following the first Gulf War that killed one million children. 

Saying ‘Bismillah’ (in the name of God) before eating pork does not make it permissible for Muslims to eat. Shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ (God is great) before killing innocent people does not make it permissible either. Muslims say the beautiful phrase “Allahu Akbar” all the time. They say it during the five daily prayers and when anything good happens, along with phrases like ‘Alhamdulillah’ (thank God) to show that they credit God with good things. That said, invoking Allah’s name during murder is despicable and killing innocent people is pure evil.

It should be noted here that mutilation is forbidden under Islamic law. It is also forbidden for a Muslim to mutilate a Muslim and a non-Muslim  A Muslim must not, therefore, mutilate another person or participate in such acts in any other way, such as by witnessing the event or approving of it.
On April 23, 2019, a California man Isaiah Peoples, 34, deliberately plowed his car into a crowded intersection sending bodies flying through the air. He targeted the victims because he believed they were Muslim according to Sunnyvale Police Chief Phan Ngo said after the incident. He was arrested after his car slammed into a tree. A news report said peoples suffer from mental illness and forget to take his medications. According to Don Draper, 72, a witness at the scene, he heard the perpetrator saying over and over again, “Thank you, Jesus, thank you, Jesus’ again and again. After this tragic incident, not one Muslims put the Bible or Christians on trial. Muslims should not be a fair game.    Does saying, “Thank you, Jesus” while trying to kill innocent people mean the Bible sanctions the murder of Muslims? Of course not. By the same token, uttering, “Allahu Akbar,” before killing anyone clearly violates Islamic law. After this tragic incident in California, not one Muslim puts the Bible or Christians on Trial. Muslims should not be fair game.

Posted in France, Human RightsComments Off on Muslims under assault in France

The fall of the Western Model

by Thierry Meyssan

The Western model, based on capitalism and democracy, no longer manages to defend the general interest or guarantee popular sovereignty. By accumulating these two failures, it brings together the two ingredients of a generalized revolution.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK 

JPEG - 33.8 kb

The French Revolution was not triggered by royal abuse. The French did not think they would overthrow the monarchy. It was the Parisians, convinced that the capital would be attacked by foreign armies and that the king would not defend it, who seized the weapons that were stored in the Bastille prison.

The crisis of capitalism

Historically, the crisis of the West began with the crisis of American capitalism in 1929. At that time, the majority of books and newspapers claimed that the concentration of capital sterilized the economy by preventing competition in many areas. While famine was raging in the US, three political models were proposed by the press at the time to break the economic deadlock:

– Leninism with the nationalization of all productive goods at the risk of destroying all individual initiative;

– the fascism of Lenin’s former representative in Italy, Benito Mussolini, who planned not to fight against the concentration of capital, but to organize it within corporations, at the risk of making employees lose all possibility of resisting abusive employers;

– Franklin Roosevelt’s progressivism, for whom technology was supposed to revive the economy and provide the solution as long as competition was restored by dismantling large corporations (according to Simon Patten’s doctrine).

It was Lenin himself who noted the failure of his economic theory during the Civil War. He then liberalized foreign trade and even allowed some private enterprises in the Soviet Union (the New Economic Policy – NEP). Fascism could only develop at the price of terrible repression. It was swept away by the Second World War. Progressiveism remained the rule until the 1980s when it was challenged by the deregulation of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

This fourth model is now also challenged by the destruction of the middle classes caused by globalization. President Bush Sr. thought that with the disappearance of the USSR, the search for prosperity should replace the military rivalry between Washington and Moscow. He allowed some US companies to form an alliance with the Chinese Communist Party and to relocate factories to the Chinese coast. Even though Chinese workers were not trained at all, the cost of their labor being twenty times lower in China than in the U.S., these companies accumulated colossal profits that allowed them to impose a much greater concentration in certain sectors than in 1929. Moreover, they made most of their profits not from the production of goods and services, but from the income from their liquid assets. Capitalism changed its nature once again. It was no longer productive, but had become financial.

Chinese workers, having gradually trained themselves, have now become as costly as US workers, so that relocation now affects their own country to the benefit of Vietnam and India this time. We’re back to where we started.

The US companies that have undertaken to relocate their jobs to China and to financialize their activities have managed to amalgamate their ideology of “economic globalization” with the globalization of the use of new techniques; two unrelated things. Indeed, while new techniques can be used everywhere in the world, they cannot be used at the same time, as they require energy and raw materials.

They have therefore convinced Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to divide the world in two: on the one hand a zone of global consumption, around the USA, Russia and China, and on the other a zone of resources to feed the former. The Pentagon then decided to destroy the state structures of the Broader Middle East so that the people of the region would not be able to resist this project; what George W. Bush called the “war without end”. Indeed, eternal wars began in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, each time allegedly for different reasons, but always with the same aggressors, the jihadists.

In 2017, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping decided at the same time to fight against this phenomenon, the former through protectionist nationalism and the latter through economic nationalism. However, Trump’s proposed tax reform was rejected by Congress: the Border Adjustment Act would have liberalized exports and taxed all imports at 20 per cent. For his part, Xi Jinping created a body to monitor the conformity of corporate objectives with those of the nation, the United Front, at the 19th Congress of the CCP. A state representative was introduced into the board of directors of each major company.

Trump’s failure to get his tax plan through led him to try to obtain the same benefits by declaring a customs war against China alone. The CCP responded by trying to both develop its domestic market and direct its overproduction towards Europe. The latter immediately paid the price. As always when governments are not attentive to the plight of their people, the economic problem causes a political crisis.

The crisis of democracy

Contrary to popular belief based on the appearance of things, it is not the choice of a new political regime, but the defense of collective interests that provokes revolutions. In the modern world, it is always about patriotism. In any case, those who revolt think, rightly or wrongly, that their rulers are at the service of foreign interests, that they are no longer allies but enemies.

The international order that was imposed after the Second World War was supposed to serve the general interest, whether through some form of democracy or through some form of dictatorship of the proletariat. However, this system could not function over time in non-sovereign states such as those of NATO or the Warsaw Pact. At one time or another, the rulers of these states were led to betray their people and serve their suzerain, the US or the USSR. This system has been accepted all the time during which, rightly or wrongly, everyone thought it indispensable for living in peace. This reason no longer exists today, but NATO is still there, now without legitimacy.

NATO, a kind of Foreign Legion of the United States and the United Kingdom, thought up and created what has become the European Union. Initially, it was a question of anchoring Western Europe in the Western camp. Today, through treaties, the European Union subordinates its defense to NATO. In practice, for the peoples of the EU, the North Atlantic Alliance is the military component of a whole of which the EU is the civilian component. NATO imposes its standards, builds the infrastructure it needs, and is financed through opaque institutions. All this is hidden from the eyes of its inhabitants, who are explained, for example, that the European Parliament votes on the norms, while it merely ratifies the NATO texts presented by the Commission.

There is no doubt that, although they suffer it without flinching, the citizens do not accept this organization: they have not stopped opposing the idea of a European Constitution.

At the same time, the concept of democracy has been profoundly transformed. It is no longer a question of guaranteeing the “power of the people”, but of submitting to the “rule of law”; two irreconcilable concepts. From now on, magistrates will decide for the people who will have the right to represent them and who will be deprived of this right. This transfer of sovereignty from the peoples to the judicial systems is indispensable to maintain the effective domination of the Anglo-Saxons over the members of the EU. Hence the relentlessness of Brussels to impose the “rule of law” on Poland and Hungary.

The revolt

The collapse of the standard of living of the little people in the USA under Barack Obama led to the election of Donald Trump. The acceleration of relocations from Europe as a result of the customs war between the USA and China provoked the movement of Yellow Vests in France.

This popular revolt materialized in the first weeks of this movement (with the demand for the Citizens’ Initiative Referendum -RIC- by Étienne Chouard). It was in line with the candidacy of the humorist Coluche for the French presidency in 1981 (“All together for their ass”) and the demonstrations of the Italian humorist Beppe Grillo in 2007 (“Vaffanculo”, meaning “Fuck them”). Gradually, the derision is accompanied by ever stronger and more obscene anger.

It must be understood that the question of the rejection of US military domination preceded that of economic globalization, but it was the latter that opened the revolt. In the same way, it is necessary to distinguish the patriotic demands of the Yellow Vests, with the national flag at the head, from those of the Trotskyists who quickly took control of their movement and hijacked it by attacking symbols of the Nation, vandalizing the Arc de Triomphe and the statue of the Marseillaise.

In short, the current revolt is the fruit of both three-quarters of a century of Anglo-Saxon domination over the members of the European Union and the hyper-concentration of globalized capital. Taken together, these two crises form a time bomb that, if not defused, will explode to the detriment of all. This revolt has now reached a real awareness of the problem, but is not yet mature enough not to be subverted by European rulers.

By not even trying to solve the problems posed, they hope to enjoy their privileges for as long as possible, without having to assume their responsibilities. In doing so, they have no choice but to push for war or risk being overthrown with great violence.

Posted in FranceComments Off on The fall of the Western Model

Covid: a curfew for what?

by: Thierry Meyssan

The French were stunned to learn that their government considers a public order measure, a curfew, to be effective in preventing an epidemic. Everyone, having understood that no virus breaks according to schedules set by decree, and given the many previous mistakes, asks the angry question: A curfew for what?

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | PARIS (FRANCE) 

JPEG - 32.9 kb

President Emmanuel Macron had chosen the star journalists of France2 and TF1, Anne-Sophie Lapix and Gilles Bouleau, to interview him on the Covid-19 epidemic. He announced a curfew to them as a health measure.

Several Western countries think they are facing a new wave of Covid-19 epidemic. Populations that have already suffered a lot, not from the disease, but from the measures taken to protect them from it, find it difficult to accept new public order measures on health grounds. This is an opportunity for us to analyze behaviors.

Governments know that they will have to account for what they have done and what they have not done. In the face of the disease and even more so in the face of this pressure, they have had to act. How did they think about their strategy?

In developing it, they relied on the advice of specialists (doctors, biologists and statisticians). Immediately these were divided in each discipline and opposed each other so that the government could only continue with some of them. But on what criteria did they choose them?

Many uncertainties

While public opinion is persuaded :
 that the virus is transmitted through respiratory droplets;
 that contaminations can be contained by wearing surgical masks and maintaining a distance of at least one meter with one’s interlocutors;
 that it is possible to distinguish healthy people from sick people by the use of PCR tests.

Specialists are much less assertive. On the contrary, some say :
 that the virus is mainly transmitted not through respiratory droplets, but through the air we breathe;
 that, therefore, surgical masks and social distances are useless;
 that the PCR tests that are performed do not measure the same thing in different laboratories and that, therefore, the cumulative statistics are like adding apples and pears together.

Thus, despite the reassuring messages from the authorities, there is still a great deal of confusion about the characteristics of this epidemic.

What can be done about it?

The problem facing the authorities was new. No professional training had prepared them to face it. So they turned to specialists. While the former gave them clear advice, everything became complicated when others came to contradict them. They were overwhelmed.

If the rulers were politicians, they could only react according to their political experience. As they grew older, they learned to propose even better, not 0.5 percent increase in the base salary like their competitors, but 0.6 percent, even if it meant finding an excuse not to have to keep their promises. Caught unawares, they went into a bidding war with their neighbors, making more drastic decisions one after the other to show that they were superior to them. Above all, they masked their incompetence by resorting to authoritarian measures.

If they were technocrats, they could only react according to the experience of their bureaucratic body when faced with large-scale disasters. But it is difficult to adapt to a health crisis the experience gained from fighting floods or earthquakes. As a reflex, they therefore turned to pre-existing public health administrations. However, the political leaders had already invented new structures that duplicated the previous ones, without specifying the distribution of competences. Instead of joining forces, each of them was trying to preserve its own square.

If the rulers had been chosen on the basis of their authority, i.e., both their firmness and their attention to others, they would have approached the problem according to their general culture.

In such a case, they knew that viruses need the people they infect to live. As deadly as Covid-19 was in the first weeks of its outbreak, it did not seek to kill humanity, but would adapt to humans. From then on, its lethality would drop rapidly and there would never be another epidemic peak. The idea of a “second wave” seemed highly unlikely to them. Never since viruses have been distinguished from bacteria has a viral disease been observed in several waves.

The rebounds we are seeing today, in the USA for example, are not small additional waves, but mark the arrival of the virus in new populations to which it has not yet adapted. The national accumulation of the number of sick people masks a geographical and social distribution.

Moreover, unaware of how the virus is transmitted, governments would have assumed that it is transmitted like all other respiratory viral diseases: not through respiratory droplets, but through the air we breathe. Similarly, they would have known that in all viral epidemics, the majority of deaths are not due to the virus itself, but to the opportunistic diseases that occur during them. As a result, they would have decided to recommend that everyone should air their living spaces thoroughly and would have made it mandatory in all jurisdictions. In addition, they would have recommended that everyone should not disinfect their hands, but wash them as often as possible. They would have ensured that points were installed for this purpose as widely as possible.

In fact, these were the two main measures that WHO had advised at the beginning of the epidemic, before hysteria replaced reflection. No wearing of surgical masks, no disinfection, no quarantine, and even less containment of healthy people.

Science does not provide a definitive answer,
it just pushes away questions

The way in which the scientists were staged illustrates a clear misunderstanding of what science is. Science is not an accumulation of knowledge, but a process of knowledge. We have just verified the virtual incompatibility between the scientific spirit and current practice.

It is absurd to demand from scientists, who are just beginning the study of a virus, its propagation and the damage it causes, a remedy for what they do not yet know. It is pretentious for scientists to answer such questions.

A change in society

Some of the measures taken when this virus erupted can be explained by misjudgements. For example, President Macron initiated the practice of generalized containment when he was intoxicated by the catastrophic statistics of Neil Ferguson (Imperial College London) [1] He announced at least 500,000 deaths. There were 14 times fewer, according to official figures that are known to be overestimated. In retrospect, it appears that this serious attack on liberties was not justified.

However, the choice of the curfew, a few months later, when there was a slight rebound in deaths, is incomprehensible in democratic states: everyone could observe that this disease was much less lethal than feared and that its most dangerous period was over. There is no current data to justify such an attack on freedoms.

President Macron himself has justified it by referring to a second wave that does not exist. If he was able to take it on such an unconvincing argument, when will he be able to lift it?

It must be noted that this time it cannot be an assessment error, but rather an authoritarian policy under the guise of a health crisis [2].

Posted in FranceComments Off on Covid: a curfew for what?

Charlie Hebdo Rides Again

ISRAEL SHAMIR 

The French President stepped on a rake for the second time, and was duly slapped in the face by its long handle. French products went off the shelf in the Arab and Turkish shops; heads chopped off in the midst of pandemics; a lot of animosity, anger, smacking of a civil war. Vous l’avez voulu, you asked for it, Emmanuel Macron! We saw it in 2015, why did you push “Replay”? Anyone can step on a rake once, but to repeat this mistake? It is not a sign of a smart guy, unless this response is exactly what he wanted.

Macron is surely a smart guy. He had a few good practical reasons to provoke French Muslims. Not an ideological man, he wanted to steal the right-wing electorate of Mme Le Pen. They are known for hating foreigners, first of all the large Muslim population of the republic. The Muslims do not fit the self-image of a Frenchman, the slim man in beret and mackintosh with a baguette under his arm. It was not hard to make this Muslim population angry, and then to manifest Macron’s iron fist in dealing with them, and voila! the nationalist voters are in the pocket of the French president.

The replay was jumpstarted by Charlie Hebdo. This small satirical magazine of little artistic value usually publishes bad taste cartoons of public loo wall quality. It wouldn’t survive but for grants and government subsidies. It is so minor that it would not be noticed either but for the mainstream media that bring its message to the last immigrant banlieue. Now they have republished some nasty cartoons aimed at the Prophet Muhammad. The immigrants and their children didn’t enjoy this premeditated insult to their faith. Think about having a good laugh over the Holocaust in the presence of a Jewish person and you’ll understand. Even peaceful and calm people dislike being offended. However, the publication was of little importance, as opposed to Macron’s public and well-covered support for it. He positively celebrated this publication and added a few well-chosen and offensive phrases against Islam. This was the ringer.

Tartuffe would be proud of Macron who declared that Charlie Hebdo is the true carrier of the French Republican spirit and its love for unbridled freedom of speech. It would be bad enough if true, but it is not. France, and the entire world, is now in the middle of a huge offensive against free speech. Facebook banishes accounts and removes posts, Google shadow bans sites, the venerable Unz.com has been both banned on Facebook and shadow-banned on Google. President Trump has his tweets removed or appended with a health warning on Twitter. The proposed new hate law of Scotland would make it a crime to express opinions likely to cause discomfort even within the four walls of your own home. For a long time it has been a crime to say “hateful things” in the public space, and in the UK there are a hundred thousand “hate crimes” a year committed, according to the thought police.

France is leading the assault against free speech. French Writer Hervé Ryssen Jailed for Criticizing Jews;French Court Sentenced Alain Soral to Pay Jewish Organization $158,500 for Re-Releasing 128-Year-Old Book – say the recent headlines. The new French law bans “hate speech” on social media. The law obliges platforms and search engines to remove offensive content – including religious bigotry – within 24 hours or risk a fine of up to €1.25m. This law, and other hate laws are applied in defence of Jews, but strangely do not defend Muslim or Christian sensibilities.

The chief editor of Charlie Hebdois aware of this discriminatory order and approves of it. A Spiked journalist reports on meeting him: “Biard[the editor] is not in favour of unregulated speech. He supports French laws that outlaw Holocaust denial, and is sympathetic towards laws on hate speech. He approves of prosecution of French comedian Dieudonné, who has been arrested numerous times for saying the Shoah wasn’t important.” You may not speak against Jews, but attacking the faith of poor Muslim immigrants is perfectly all right, for they are people of no importance, and they should learn who is their boss and what is the true faith of their new homeland (a hint: it is not Christianity). If they make trouble it is even better for they can be hit hard.

Theoretically, it is illegal in France to insult Muslim (or Christian) beliefs. The European Court of Human Rights had ruled so explicitly in a judgment in the case of Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria: “The respect for the religious feelings of believers guaranteed by Article 9 can legitimately be considered violated by provocative images of objects of religious veneration, such images can be considered a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which should also be a feature of a democratic society.”

In the case of Wingrove v. the United Kingdom:

“… Respect for the religious feelings of believers can become the basis for the state’s legal restriction of the publication of provocative images of objects of religious veneration.”

In the case of Pussy Riot v. Russia:“Given that the applicants’ presentation took place in a cathedral, which is a place of religious worship, the Court considers that (the State’s) interference can be regarded as having the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of third parties.”

Such activities should be illegal, but apparently are not. This unfairness is a source of aggravation: Muslims were laughed out of court when they complained against particularly vile Charlie’s cartoons, but Jews almost always win when they go to court against their denigrators. (Full disclosure: I was also sued by LICRA, the French Jewish body, while my French publisher was financially devastated by their Lawfare).

Thus, France (like the rest of the West) has very little freedom of expression left, and Macron’s claim that Charlie cartoons should be celebrated as a sign of Liberté sounds particularly hypocritical and false, like George Bush’s They hate us for our Freedom. As if that weren’t enough, then came the push to make every Muslim in France aware of this Macron-approved Charlie nastiness. In schools, a lesson was dedicated to educating children in the crude pornography of the cartoons. It was claimed (and I have no way of verifying) that the murdered French teacher had shown cartoons mocking the Prophet for five years every year since 2015, as he did this year after Macron’s speech. He allegedly added another pornographic cartoon and suggested Muslims might leave the classroom if they did not want to be offended. I can imagine the cry (selection! deportation!) if a teacher had suggested that Jewish pupils should leave the room. The upset Muslim parents went to the police and complained. The teacher lodged a counter-complaint alleging defamation. It is difficult to judge now whether the slain teacher was acting as he was obliged to by the authorities, or whether he was especially zealous in delivering the smut.

An 18-year-old youngster of Chechen origin (he had lived in France since he was six) killed him and allegedly decapitated him, and right away the killer was shot dead by police. This created a wave of panic in France, with Macron and Le Pen competing with calls to punish the Muslims. Some Muslim extremists allegedly attacked worshippers in a Nice church and killed three or four of them. This was decried as a false flag action, aimed at terrorising people into accepting the new lockdown, by a prominent radical French site that called for the “refusal of re-containment (or new lockdown) as the only real act of resistance in these troubled times”.

It could be a false flag, for no Muslim group accepted responsibility, and besides, the French secret service has a tradition of killing the perpetrators they sent to do the deed, and the killing of the young Chechen fits their playbook. The next terrorist act, the shooting of a Greek Orthodox priest in Lyon, was also ascribed to bloodthirsty Muslims, until it was discovered that the criminal was a fellow Orthodox ex-monk with some personal grudge against the priest; then the Lyon attack was dropped into the memory hole.

Macron still closed all the churches in France; apparently the government wanted to create the background for a religious war of Christians vs Muslims. Even murkier is the reason why the Chechen rebels/terrorists have been brought to France, as well as Syrian, Libyan and Afghan refugees/terrorists who participated in the bloody civil wars in their lands. They were certainly dangerous.

We know that British intelligence used Libyan refugees with a dubious background to keep meddling in Libyan affairs, and two terrorists, Salman and Hashem Abedi, fled Libya with British government assistance onboard the UK Royal Navy vessel, HMS Enterprise, only to kill and injure many Brits in 2017 in Manchester. We know that the Russians have asked to extradite suspected Chechen terrorists from England and France, but were refused.

It is not likely that these hardened terrorists have been brought to Western Europe in hope of turning them into exemplary citizens, or for humanitarian reasons. It is more probable that they were brought in exactly for the purpose of creating a terrorist underground network, to frighten citizens into obedience. Just like coronavirus, but in another way. Some people are getting killed, but the purpose is achieved: new anti-terrorist acts are enacted and acted upon; more surveillance is introduced. The governments and their security services want to keep us scared, and terrorism is a reliable means for that. It is all part of the war the elites carry out against the nations and against too-unreliable democracy.

Elites are unhappy with us, the people, says Frank Furedi: “Contempt for the people who fail to vote in accordance with their betters’ wishes is one of the main drivers of elite hostility towards democracy today.” They hope “coronavirus will kill populism”, read: democracy, he adds.

You can trust politically incorrect Russians to say it straight. The Russian top banker Herman Gref in his candid speech at SPIEF 2012 said what his Western partners think but never would utter:

“I want to tell you that you are actually saying terrible things. You are proposing to transfer power into the hands of the people. But if people would know all, it will be extremely difficult to manipulate them. People don’t want to be manipulated when they have knowledge. That’s why Kabbalah was a secret teaching for three thousand years. Any mass control implies a manipulation element. How to live, how to manage such a society, where everyone has equal access to information, everyone has the opportunity to receive directly information unless it had been processed through government analysts? How to live in such a society? Your reasoning makes me scary.”

Herman Gref had been injected with a truth serum, people said after hearing his candid talk. (Here in Russian). Perhaps.

Perhaps the very idea of mass immigration from the war-stricken regions was connected with the elites’ desire to start a low-intensity civil war in their own country while undoing social cohesion achieved by centuries of living together.

Now we shall proceed to a deeper reason why Macron decided to splash some oil onto the ever-glimmering bonfire of strife.

A fluent ideologue of French far-right nationalism is Eric Zemmour, an Algerian Jew. Here is a short article in English giving some background to the man. The Irish Times mistakenly calls him “the son of Jewish “Pied-Noirs”, who emigrated from Algeria when it gained independence from France”. This isn’t so: Pied-Noirs were French colonists in Algeria, while Zemmour is a native Algerian Jew. Instead of being an assimilated Jew as he claims, he is rather a dissimulating Jew: despite being an advocate for Catholic France, he goes to a synagogue, avoids pork and keeps kosher (Jewish dietary laws) at home, but not outside. He says he was a leftist until he discovered Muslims and started his own warfare against them.

He is, and has been, allowed to say such things on French mainstream TV channels for which anybody else would be arrested and imprisoned. He calls for putting an end to immigration (which is reasonable) but he does not stop at this, but speaks of mass deportations, and actually calls for a civil war against French Muslim citizens, while presenting himself as a defender of Catholic France.

His official opponent, the ideologue of liberal France, is Bernard Henri Levi, BHL, another North African Jew, who was instrumental in creating civil wars in Syria and Libya while encouraging Islamist fanatics in these lands to overturn the secular socialist regimes. He is a supporter of immigration, and he lives part of the year in Marrakech, Morocco.

These two Jews are leading France to religious strife, acting on both sides of the divide. Doesn’t it remind us of a Rothschild and a Trotsky, a ruthless banker and a fiery revolutionary, who incited class conflicts from both sides of the social divide, as G.K. Chesterton saw it?

This is the view of a Moroccan-French author, Youssef Hindi, a friend and a co-worker with Alain Soral. He has asserted that Jews have systematically infiltrated Muslim and Christian elites in order to stimulate destructive wars between Muslims and Christians, for the benefit of Jews alone, who will thus be able to settle in the Holy Land, drive out the original inhabitants, and establish a world empire of nations obedient to Jerusalem, which is the ultimate content of Jewish Messianism. Hindi’s West and Islam has the caption “Messianic sources and the genesis of Zionism from medieval Europe to the Clash of Civilizations”.

According to Hindi, Zionism didn’t begin with Theodore Herzl but has deep roots in the Kabbalistic eschatology of the Middle Ages, conveyed and nourished by successive generations of sages, mystics and miracle workers.

Such a sage was Don Isaac Abravanel (born 1437), a subject of the book by Benzion Netanyahu, father of the Israeli Prime Minister and a cult figure for father and son alike. He launched the era of Jewish messianism, says a Haaretz writer. His idea, absorbed and accepted by Benjamin Netanyahu, was the calling for an apocalyptic catastrophe, a “war of the monsters” between Gog and Armilus – symbolising Ishmaelites (Muslims) and Christendom (as Abravanel described, for example, in his work “MayaneiYeshua”). This war will be concluded with a weakening of both sides and the Rise of Jews to world domination, symbolically called ‘The Feast of the Leviathan.’

Karl Schmitt, the great philosopher of his time, said in 1942, that Jews enjoy the colossal global struggle between the monsters, Leviathan (Britain and the US) and Behemoth (Germany): “They gleefully rub their hands waiting for the mutual attrition that would enable the Jews’ domination of the world, or ‘The Feast of the Leviathan.” Will the war between Islam and Christendom now brewing in France allow for the next Feast of the Leviathan?

Perhaps. Avner Ben-Zaken, an Israeli thinker, wrote in his excellent treatment of the subject (here in English) that Benjamin Netanyahu, himself a great adept of Catastrophic Messianism and a believer in the war of Edom and Ishmael as the key to salvation of Jews, visited France in the aftermath of the first Charlie episode and encouraged the French Jewish leadership to act by calling them a “new collective Isaac Abravanel”. Two years later, the French Jewish leadership appointed Emanuel Macron the President of the Republic, says a French Jewish writer blogging under the name Tsarfat (the Hebrew name for France).

In a long and detailed piece Tsarfat tells of a few prominent Jews (Alain Minc, Serge Weinberg, Jacques Attali, and Bernard Mourad) vouching for Macron with David de Rothschild. In 2011, Macron became a junior partner at Rothschild, earning a substantial salary. He was worth every penny – he tricked Le Monde, he cheated President Hollande, he cheated the French state, he did whatever Rothschild demanded and in return, he has got the presidency of the Republic. He was the new king appointed by the new Abravanel. Now he has to deliver the war between Christendom and Islam, for the supreme glory of Israel.

Eric Zemmour, the fiery far-right spokesman, a commenter with its own prime-time slot on a major TV channel, is the ideal man to lead the psychotic (thanks to Corona panic) France (and Europe) into a religious war between Christendom and Islam. In the war, both major opponents will be broken and weakened, while Israel with its Judaism-for-Goyim, the Holocaust creed will have the upper hand.

Eric Montana, a French Christian journalist wrote: “Zemmour is a double agent in the service of the Clash of Civilizations and of the Zionist movement which feeds a climate of permanent tension in France. Zemmour works to provoke division and pour fuel on the fire, by outrageously criminalizing some of our compatriots of Muslim faith, and thus endangering civil peace in our country. Zemmour is a public danger who despite his numerous convictions for inciting racial and religious hatred, remains scandalously present in the media, undoubtedly enjoying protection invisible to the naked eye … but yet very real.”

At least we can say that the opponents of Muslims aren’t Christians. For the Charlie Hebdo magazine is explicitly anti-Christian as well as anti-Muslim. One finds there some most obnoxious cartoons offending the Virgin and Christ, as well as the pope and the Church. (They never offended Jews, somehow).

A Christian government would act like the Russians did. A few years ago, Pussy Riotprofaned the St Saviour of Moscow in the way that Femen had profaned some great European cathedrals, from Notre Dame de Paris to Strasbourg. The Russian government did not wait for vigilante justice to be meted upon the viragos, but had gave them up to two years of prison. At the same time, the Russian criminal law has been changed to include ‘sacrilege’ among ordinary crimes, by general consent. Since then, such crimes do not occur.

In Charlie’s France, the Femen despoiling the churches were never punished; but a churchwarden who tried to prevent that was heavily fined. France has a long anti-Christian tradition, usually described as “laic” (secular), and its grand anti-Church coalition of Atheists, Huguenots and Jews coalesced in the days of the Dreyfus Affair. It also has a strong Catholic church, but not one calling for a war with Muslims.

The true Christian view of the developments was expressed by Archbishop Theodosius Atallah Hanna of Sebaste in Palestine (he baptised me in 2002). He condemned the targeting of Muslims in France and around the world through degrading paintings and cartoons. “Hate speech aims at serving the policy of divide and conquer. Christians and Muslims must cement a culture of brotherhood and togetherness and we must work together, more than ever before to defeat all the plans and conspiracies that aim at dividing us and at creating discord in our ranks”, said the Palestinian bishop.

P.S. Much attention is given to the exotic way of killing by the alleged terrorists. Actually, beheading is as French as onion soup. Guillotine was the preferred national method of execution (like electric chair in the US). The French beheaded their king and queen. During the Battle for Algeria, French paras famously played football with chopped rebel heads. Napoleon had brought beheading to the Middle East, not vice versa. During his campaign in Egypt, general Bonaparte having learned of an uprising in a village had ordered his adjutant Croisier to go there, surround the entire tribe, kill all men without exception, and bring women and children to Cairo. His orders were promptly carried out. Many children and women who were driven on foot died on the way, and, a few hours later, donkeys laden with sacks appeared on the main square of Cairo. The sacks were opened and the heads of the executed men of the guilty tribe rolled across the square, wrote the historian. Should we say chicken came home to roost?

Posted in FranceComments Off on Charlie Hebdo Rides Again

President Macron’s bad play in Lebanon

by Thierry Meyssan

Playing Deus ex machina, President Macron came to distribute the good and bad points to the Lebanese leaders. Sure of his superiority, he said he was ashamed of the behavior of this political class. But all this is just a bad play. Underhandedly, he is trying to destroy the Resistance and to transform the country into a tax haven.

JPEG - 28.1 kb

The French President, Emmanuel Macron, devoted one of his rare press conferences to the situation in a foreign country, Lebanon. He said: “Hezbollah cannot at the same time be an army at war with Israel, a militia unleashed against civilians in Syria and a respectable party in Lebanon. It must not believe that it is stronger than it is. He must show that he respects the Lebanese as a whole and he has shown the opposite in the last few days. Sayed Hassan Nasrallah will answer him on September 29.

Reacting to the explosion of the port of Beirut on August 4, 2020, the Lebanese people and the international press saw it as an accident due to the corruption of the port authorities. For our part, after analyzing the first clues, we immediately questioned the thesis of the accident and favored that of the attack. French President Emmanuel Macron was urgently on his way to Lebanon to save the country. Two days later, we broadcast on a Syrian television station, Sama, the hypothesis of the continuation of the operation to implement Resolution 1559.

The hypothesis of resolution 1559

What is it all about? The 2004 Franco-US resolution was drafted on the instructions of US President George W. Bush, based on a text written by then Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri with the help of French President Jacques Chirac. It aimed to have the objectives formulated by US Secretary of State Colin Powell recognized by the United Nations Security Council:
 to drive out the Syrian peace force resulting from the Taif Agreemen [1] ;
 to put an end to the Lebanese Resistance to imperialism;
 prevent the re-election of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud.

However, on February 14, 2005, Rafik Hariri, who was no longer Prime Minister and had just been reconciled with Hezbollah, was assassinated in a mega-attack in which Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and his Syrian counterpart, Bashar el-Assad, were accused of being the instigators. The Syrian peace force withdrew and President Lahoud renounced his candidacy.

In retrospect, it appears
 that the attack was not carried out with conventional explosives carried in a white van, as is still believed, but with a weapon combining nanotechnology and enriched nuclear fuel that very few powers had at their disposal at the time [2] ;
 that the international investigation carried out by the United Nations was in reality a secret CIA-Mossad operation directed against Presidents Lahoud and Assad as well as against Hezbollah. It was shattered during a huge scandal that brought to light false witnesses recruited and paid by UN investigators [3];
 that all charges against the suspects were dropped and that a UN body, abusively labeled the “Special Tribunal for Lebanon” without having the legal attributes, refused to examine evidence and sentenced two Hezbollah members in absentia.

In the end, no one dared to mention again the end of the Lebanese Resistance as stipulated by Resolution 1559.

This Resistance was formed around Shiite families during the Israeli invasion (Operation “Peace in Galilee”) in 1982. After the victory, this network gradually entered politics under the name of Hezbollah. At the time of its creation, it was fascinated by the Iranian anti-imperialist revolution and backed by the Syrian army, as revealed by its secretary general in 2011, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. However, after the withdrawal of the Syrian peace force from Lebanon, it turned almost entirely to Iran. It returned to Syria when it realized that a defeat of Damascus at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood would not only destroy Syria, but also Lebanon. During all these years, it acquired both a gigantic arsenal and combat experience, so that today it is the formost non-state army in the world. Its successes and the means at its disposal have attracted many people who do not necessarily share its ideals. Its partial transformation into a political party has made it acquire the same flaws as other Lebanese political parties, including corruption.

Today, Hezbollah is not a state within the Lebanese state, but in many situations it is the state instead of chaos. Faced with this hybrid phenomenon, Westerners have reacted in scattered order: the United States has classified it as “terrorist”, while the Europeans have subtly distinguished, in 2013, its civilian side with whom they discuss its military side, which they also condemn as “terrorist”. To justify their decision to their public opinions, the West has developed a number of secret operations aimed at attributing to Hezbollah either attacks prior to its existence (against the military contingents of the US and France at the regional meeting of the allied secret services), or attacks abroad (notably in Argentina and Bulgaria).

Completing the implementation of Resolution 1559 [4] today means disarming Hezbollah and transforming it into a simple political party, as corrupt by Westerners as the others.

The French intervention

President Emmanuel Macron was the first head of state to travel to Lebanon after the explosion in the port of Beirut, where he visited twice. He pledged not to let the country down and to help it reform. He presented a “road map” that was agreed upon by all political parties. It provided for the formation of a mission government to carry out economic and financial reforms. However, Mustapha Adib, the Prime Minister-designate, found it impossible to achieve this and resigned. President Macron then called a press conference on September 27. He booed the entire political class and explicitly accused Hezbollah and the Amal movement and implicitly their ally, President Michel Aoun, of having thwarted his attempt to rescue Lebanon.

President Macron’s arguments convinced only those who do not know the history of Lebanon. On the contrary, our readers know [5] that this country has never been a nation and therefore could never be a democracy. It has been shared by various confessional communities since the Ottoman colonization that coexist there without mixing with each other. This division was institutionalized by the Constitution (1926) inspired by France, a proxy power. Then, its functioning at all levels of the state was set in stone by the United States and Saudi Arabia, during the Taif Agreement (1989) which put an end to the civil war. From this point of view, it is strange, to say the least, to blame political personnel for corrupting the state when it is a direct and inexorable consequence of the institutions imposed on them from abroad.

Above all, it is inadmissible to hear a foreign president posing as a lecturer and declaring that he is ashamed of the Lebanese leaders. Especially since this foreigner represents a nation that has a heavy historical responsibility in the current situation.

It seems that in practice, Lebanon’s sponsors intend to overthrow the corrupt political class they have set up and replace it with a government of technocrats trained in their best schools. This government will be in charge of reforming the finances, restoring the tax haven of Lebanon’s golden age, but above all not to break the confessional system so that the country’s dependence on its sponsors will continue. This country would thus be doomed to remain colonized without admitting it and to behead some of its leaders every thirty or forty years.

In the minds of President Macron’s backers, the unrest in Saudi Arabia has thwarted the plan for a free zone for billionaires, Neom. Lebanon should therefore be used again to escape its own tax obligations.

Let us recall, moreover, that when France established secular institutions, it immediately deprived all its colonies of them, considering that religion was the only way to pacify the peoples it controlled. Lebanon is the only country in the world where a Shiite mullah, a Sunni mufti and a Christian patriarch can impose their views on political parties.

President Macron’s repeated attacks against Hezbollah are precisely in line with my hypothesis: the ultimate goal of the West is to destroy the Resistance and transform Hezbollah into a party as corrupt as the others.

Indeed, according to Emmanuel Macron, the current Hezbollah is at the same time a “militia”, a “terrorist organization” and a political party. Yet, as we have seen, it is in reality both the first non-governmental army dedicated to the struggle against imperialism and a political party representing the Shiite community. It has never been responsible for terrorist actions abroad. According to Macron, it has created “a climate of terror”, inhibiting other political formations. However, Hezbollah has never used its gigantic arsenal against its Lebanese rivals. The brief war of 2008 did not pit it against the Sunnis and Druze, but against those who housed spy centers of foreign powers (notably in the archive premises of FuturTV).

During the press conference, reference was also made to the demand of Hezbollah and Amal to choose the Minister of Finance. This apparently preposterous request is vital for the Resistance. Not to plunder the state, as some imply, but to circumvent US sanctions against the Resistance. Saad Hariri, after opposing it, rallied to it as soon as he grasped what was at stake. This is why, contrary to what President Macron claimed, the failure of the government formation is not attributable to Hezbollah or any other Lebanese formation, but to the French will to break the Resistance.

At the time of the election of President Jacques Chirac, the Saudi proxy, Rafik Hariri, heavily financed his election campaign, causing a memorable incident in the French Constitutional Council. Similarly, during the election of President Emmanuel Macron, Saad Hariri (son of the former president) financed his campaign, albeit on a smaller scale. So when Mr. Macron announced that the international community would save Lebanon financially if it applied its roadmap, Saad Hariri demanded a return on investment, namely 20% of the future sums. After consultation with his main donor, the US-Israeli Henri Kravis, [6] Emmanuel Macron refused and threatened sanctions against the three presidents of Lebanon (of the Republic, the Assembly and the Government).

France calculates on the basis of its historical knowledge of the region. However, it has not understood some of its evolutions, as its failures in Libya, Syria, and in the Iran-US negotiations attest. While it is concerned about Turkey’s influence in Lebanon, it overestimates that of Saudi Arabia and Iran, underestimates that of Syria and ignores that of Russia.

For those who observe precisely what is happening, France is not honest in its concern for Lebanon. Thus, President Macron’s trips had been preceded by the circulation of a petition calling on France to restore its mandate over Lebanon, that is to say, to recolonize it. It was quickly established that this spontaneous petition was an initiative of the French secret service. Or that the French president’s second trip was the centennial of the proclamation of Greater Lebanon by General Henri Gouraud, leader of the French Colonial Party. It is not very difficult to understand what France hopes to get in return for its action against the Resistance.

Posted in Middle East, France, LebanonComments Off on President Macron’s bad play in Lebanon

Terror struck in Quebec again!

Inline image


By Mahmoud El-Yousseph

Terror struck in Quebec again! Last Sunday, Quebec City residents woke up after a night of terror. Local police had arrested a disguised 24-year-old man from Montreal who went on a stabbing rampage the night before that left at least two people dead and five others wounded.

Hold your horses, there was no Islamic connection!
The man lunged at his victims with a Japanese-style sword while they were out celebrating Halloween. Police stated that the shooter is mentally unstable and is not associated with any terrorist organization. As expected, the mayor, as well as the press did not care about his faith, as long as he was not a Muslim.
The Quebec City’s mayor said, “The assault brought back bad memories of 2017 when a gunman opened fire shortly after the end of the evening prayer,  killing six worshippers and injuring 19 more at one of the city mosques.” 
Meanwhile, after a two-hour-long hunt with dozens of armed officers, the Halloween attacker was arrested. No name or photo released by the police. I wonder why?
Canadian Prime Minister, Trudeau, and the premier of Quebec offered their condolences to the families of the victims. The mayor of the city stated on Twitter hours later that mental illness was the cause of the attack. 
Last September, a 58-year-old Muslim man was stabbed to death outside a Toronto mosque. Even though CBC News knew the name of the hate group but it chose not to publish it to avoid giving “additional exposure.” Once again.  there was no was empathy, outrage, or talk of terrorism expressed by Canadian officials after Toronto’s attack, as they usually do when the attacker is a Muslim.
When I read about the latest tragic news in Quebec, I hoped and prayed that the culprits were not Muslims or have connections to the Middle East. There is no doubt in my mind that islamophobes were crossing their fingers that the terrorist/s who committed this crime were Muslim.
It is ironic how quickly public officials and news organizations blame Islam when a Muslim commits a crime; however, when non-muslims commit a crime, their religion is never mentioned. How do you spell hypocrisy?

Posted in FranceComments Off on Terror struck in Quebec again!

So France and Italy Helped Jihadists. Notre Dame Slaughterer arrived in Lampedusa with Migrant’s Boats

by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio for VT Europe

Versione originale in Italiano

In front of three people murdered and another killed a few weeks ago, one cannot help but cry. Cry the curse that intoxicates some human beings to kill their fellow men just because they consider them different or perhaps enemies. If we were to look only at the brutal planning of the murderous act none of these jackals of human lives would be comparable to Brenton Tarrant, the self-styled white supremacist in the smell of Mossad who killed dozens of Muslims in the mosques of Christchurch.

But what has happened is happening in “civilized” Europe, very far from New Zealand that we Westerners do not want to deal with, especially due to the risk of discovering that there had been a massacre too well prepared to be only the bloody madness of a personal trainer trained by ISIS in Camp Rukban, the Syrian concentration camp run by Islamic terrorists under the concession of the United States Army.

CHRISTCHURCH, L’EX MINISTRO ISLAMICO: «MOSSAD DIETRO LE STRAGI»

“Bloody attack on the sword near the Notre-Dame church in Nice. The victims of the attack are two women and a man, according to police sources confirmed to BFM-TV. The two people who died inside the cathedral were “slaughtered” or “beheaded”, according to various sources. A third victim, a woman, took refuge in a bar near the church, where she died shortly after from the consequences of her injuries, reports the radio France Info. “Tell my children I love them”: these are the last words before expiring of the dead woman in the bar. The woman was seriously hit in the throat by the attacker, who was unable to behead her.”

The perpetrator of the attack was stopped: he would be called ‘Brahim A.’ ​​and spoke in Arabic to the police who neutralized him. In the hospital he said he acted alone by continuing to obsessively repeat Allah Akbar, Allah is great.

He was identified with the name of Aouissaoui Bahrain, born in Tunisia on March 29, 1999. The man would have arrived in Italy last September aboard a boat. After landing in Lampedusa he would have remained in quarantine for a few weeks before being transferred to Bari, in the identification center. And it was in the Apulian city that the 21-year-old was photographed, as usual, by the Police Headquarters.

The Nice killer had “arrived very recently from Lampedusa”, reports Ansa: the deputy of the Nice region, Eric Ciotti, tweeted it, stating that he had just asked Emmanuel Macron, in a meeting at the site of the attack , to “suspend any migratory flow and any asylum procedure, in particular at the Italian border”.

This dramatic massacre comes a few days after another terrible murder with beheading for religious reasons. The one made by the 18-year-old Chechen refugee Abdullakh Anzorov who showed up on Friday 16 October in front of the Bois d’Aulne middle school in Conflans Sainte Honorine knowing the name of his intended victim, the professor of History and Geography Samuel Paty, who had held a civic education lesson showing in the class some cartoons about Mohammed, but without knowing how to identify him.

JIHADISTI ISIS “EUROPEI” IN UCRAINA

x 10.294 Views ALLARME PER GLI ISLAMICI CECENI COL PASSAPORTO DI KIEV ALLEATI DEI MILITARI … Leggi tuttoJIHADISTI ISIS “EUROPEI” IN UCRAINA

According to anti-terrorism prosecutor Jean-François Ricard, the young man from Chechnya, in fact, appeared in front of the school on Friday knowing only the name of his intended victim. He would have approached the boys by offering them about 350 euros and asking in exchange to indicate the professor who had given a lesson in civics by showing some cartoons about Mohammed in the classroom. The boys would have accepted even though the 18-year-old had told them that he wanted to humiliate him and hit him to force him to ask forgiveness for the caricatures of the prophet.

So far the news that does not analyze the context in which these terrible terrorist actions took place. First of all, it should be noted that Chechen Islamic terrorists can safely travel to Europe thanks to the passport granted by Ukraine which used them as a para-military force in the war against the separatist republics of Donbass although they were known as former Foreign Terrorist Fighters in Syria in the ranks of the Islamic State.

INFERNO SAHEL: JIHADISTI AFRICANI TRUCIDANO PRETI E CRISTIANI

x 16.876 Views SUORA DI 77 ANNI DECAPITATA IN RITO MACABRO SACERDOTI E FEDELI UCCISI … Leggi tuttoINFERNO SAHEL: JIHADISTI AFRICANI TRUCIDANO PRETI E CRISTIANI

Furthermore, it should be noted that France has made multicultural propaganda its democratic bulwark without ever caring about who imported from countries subject to military invasion such as Libya, Mali and other countries in Sahel. Muslim immigration, even of extremists, was the compromise to be paid to obtain embarrassing alliances on the ground and not to sacrifice too many soldiers in the colonial wars of the third millennium. In more than one reportage we have reported from African authoritative sources which reported an increase in jihadist formations after the arrival of the French militias.

ANCORA GUERRA IN SIRIA: Abattuto aereo russo, strage di soldati

Thirdly, finally, it should be noted that the freedom of communication claimed by Paris in the face of a massive increase in the Islamization of the country represents an illusion based on the hypocritical belief that all Muslims are good, although they emigrated to France often for the devastation created by the war policy of the French presidents by Nicolas Sarkozy, instigator of the killing of Muhammar Gaddafi which caused an endless civil war in Libya, to Emmanuel Macron, who bombed Syria on 17 September 2018, without an apparent specific reason , in support of the aviation action of the Israel Defense Forces which caused an anti-aircraft reaction in which a Russian reconnaissance plane, Il-20, was shot down with 15 crew members dead killed.

In a context of such social-political tensions, the choice of the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, which last September 1st re-published the caricatures of Mohammed that had made him a target of Islamic terrorism, seemed inappropriate. This was announced by the newspaper on the eve of the opening of the trial for the attack which in January 2015 claimed 12 victims in its editorial office. “We will never bow our heads, we will never give up,” Charlie’s editor Riss explained in the newsstand issue. We must not forget that Nice had already been hit by a terrible terrorist attack on 14 July 2016, when a man, driving a truck, voluntarily hit people on the promenade causing 87 victims.

STRAGISTI JIHADISTI D’EUROPA

x 2.221 Views MERCATINI NATALIZI NEL MIRINO DOPO BERLINO TOCCA A STRASBURGO. DOVE LA CORTE … Leggi tuttoSTRAGISTI JIHADISTI D’EUROPA

The new killer of Notre Dame, however, appears to have landed in Lampedusa together with other migrants. Confirmation of the ways in which the Tunisian entered Europe comes from sources of the security apparatus according to which the first registration of man took place on the island.

All the investigations are underway to reconstruct the various movements of the Tunisian, in close contact with the French authorities. It is not the first time that a Tunisian who landed in Italy then became the protagonist of acts of terrorism in Europe: in February 2011, Anis Amri, the author of the massacre at the Berlin Christmas market in 2016, arrived in Lampedusa. upon landing, Amri declared himself a minor and was transferred to a center for minors in Sicily.

The French Council of the Muslim cult strongly condemns the terrorist attack in Nice. “As a sign of mourning and solidarity with the victims and their loved ones”, we read on Twitter, he invites the “Muslims of France to cancel all the Malwid festivities”. Turkey also condemns the attack “strongly”. The French Bishops’ Conference condemned the attack as an “unspeakable” act and stressed that “Christians must not become a target to be shot down”.

But an unsettling unknown remains open. The killer arrived in France after landing in Lampedusa. In Italy, according to reports from the Libyan National Army by General Khalifa Haftar, thousands of Isis and Al Qaeda jihadists arrived from Libya and Tunisia that Turkey used in the Libyan conflict to support the Government of the National Agreement of Tripoli by President Fayez Al Serray.

WEAPONS LOBBY – 4. UK and Italy in the hands of Qatar’s Muslim Brotherhood: Rothschild partner and Jihadists’ funder

x 59.809 Views VERSIONE ORIGINALE IN ITALIANO by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio To discover … Leggi tuttoWEAPONS LOBBY – 4. UK and Italy in the hands of Qatar’s Muslim Brotherhood: Rothschild partner and Jihadists’ funder

How many of these are ready to become suicide bombers and commit hideous crimes in the name of Allah? This is the real question that Macron should answer but above all the President of the Italian Republic Sergio Mattarella who legitimized the operations of the Muslim Brotherhood of the Turkish tyrant Recep Tayyp Erdogan in Libya with his diplomatic missions in Qatar.


MAIN SOURCES

GOSPA NEWS – JIHADISTS REPORTS

GOSPA NEWS – WARZONES REPORTS

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, FranceComments Off on So France and Italy Helped Jihadists. Notre Dame Slaughterer arrived in Lampedusa with Migrant’s Boats

Macron “mediator” of the Belarusian crisis

DEUTSCHESPAÑOLFRANÇAISITALIANOPORTUGUÊSTÜRKÇE

After Lebanon, French President Emmanuel Macron aspires to become the “mediator” of the Belarusian crisis. However, he has already taken a stand against President Alexander Lukashenko in an interview with the French weekly Le Journal du Dimanche on 28 September 2020, and in favour of his opponent Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, whom he encountered in Vilnius the following day.

Going still further, the party of the president, La République en Marche, invited his rival to address the French National Assembly, which she accepted.

It may be recalled that the policies embodied by President Lukashenko enjoy the approval of the overwhelming majority of his fellow citizens, while his methods are strongly criticized by those who identify with the opposition.

Posted in Belarus, FranceComments Off on Macron “mediator” of the Belarusian crisis

President Macron’s bad play in Lebanon

by Thierry Meyssan

Playing Deus ex machina, President Macron came to distribute the good and bad points to the Lebanese leaders. Sure of his superiority, he said he was ashamed of the behavior of this political class. But all this is just a bad play. Underhandedly, he is trying to destroy the Resistance and to transform the country into a tax haven.

VOLTAIRE

عربيDEUTSCHΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΆESPAÑOLFRANÇAISITALIANONEDERLANDSPORTUGUÊSРУССКИЙTÜRKÇE

JPEG - 28.1 kb

The French President, Emmanuel Macron, devoted one of his rare press conferences to the situation in a foreign country, Lebanon. He said: “Hezbollah cannot at the same time be an army at war with Israel, a militia unleashed against civilians in Syria and a respectable party in Lebanon. It must not believe that it is stronger than it is. He must show that he respects the Lebanese as a whole and he has shown the opposite in the last few days. Sayed Hassan Nasrallah will answer him on September 29.

Reacting to the explosion of the port of Beirut on August 4, 2020, the Lebanese people and the international press saw it as an accident due to the corruption of the port authorities. For our part, after analyzing the first clues, we immediately questioned the thesis of the accident and favored that of the attack. French President Emmanuel Macron was urgently on his way to Lebanon to save the country. Two days later, we broadcast on a Syrian television station, Sama, the hypothesis of the continuation of the operation to implement Resolution 1559.

The hypothesis of resolution 1559

-
-
-

What is it all about? The 2004 Franco-US resolution was drafted on the instructions of US President George W. Bush, based on a text written by then Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri with the help of French President Jacques Chirac. It aimed to have the objectives formulated by US Secretary of State Colin Powell recognized by the United Nations Security Council:
 to drive out the Syrian peace force resulting from the Taif Agreemen [1] ;
 to put an end to the Lebanese Resistance to imperialism;
 prevent the re-election of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud.

However, on February 14, 2005, Rafik Hariri, who was no longer Prime Minister and had just been reconciled with Hezbollah, was assassinated in a mega-attack in which Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and his Syrian counterpart, Bashar el-Assad, were accused of being the instigators. The Syrian peace force withdrew and President Lahoud renounced his candidacy.

-
-
-

In retrospect, it appears
 that the attack was not carried out with conventional explosives carried in a white van, as is still believed, but with a weapon combining nanotechnology and enriched nuclear fuel that very few powers had at their disposal at the time [2] ;
 that the international investigation carried out by the United Nations was in reality a secret CIA-Mossad operation directed against Presidents Lahoud and Assad as well as against Hezbollah. It was shattered during a huge scandal that brought to light false witnesses recruited and paid by UN investigators [3];
 that all charges against the suspects were dropped and that a UN body, abusively labeled the “Special Tribunal for Lebanon” without having the legal attributes, refused to examine evidence and sentenced two Hezbollah members in absentia.

In the end, no one dared to mention again the end of the Lebanese Resistance as stipulated by Resolution 1559.

This Resistance was formed around Shiite families during the Israeli invasion (Operation “Peace in Galilee”) in 1982. After the victory, this network gradually entered politics under the name of Hezbollah. At the time of its creation, it was fascinated by the Iranian anti-imperialist revolution and backed by the Syrian army, as revealed by its secretary general in 2011, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. However, after the withdrawal of the Syrian peace force from Lebanon, it turned almost entirely to Iran. It returned to Syria when it realized that a defeat of Damascus at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood would not only destroy Syria, but also Lebanon. During all these years, it acquired both a gigantic arsenal and combat experience, so that today it is the formost non-state army in the world. Its successes and the means at its disposal have attracted many people who do not necessarily share its ideals. Its partial transformation into a political party has made it acquire the same flaws as other Lebanese political parties, including corruption.

Today, Hezbollah is not a state within the Lebanese state, but in many situations it is the state instead of chaos. Faced with this hybrid phenomenon, Westerners have reacted in scattered order: the United States has classified it as “terrorist”, while the Europeans have subtly distinguished, in 2013, its civilian side with whom they discuss its military side, which they also condemn as “terrorist”. To justify their decision to their public opinions, the West has developed a number of secret operations aimed at attributing to Hezbollah either attacks prior to its existence (against the military contingents of the US and France at the regional meeting of the allied secret services), or attacks abroad (notably in Argentina and Bulgaria).

Completing the implementation of Resolution 1559 [4] today means disarming Hezbollah and transforming it into a simple political party, as corrupt by Westerners as the others.

The French intervention

President Emmanuel Macron was the first head of state to travel to Lebanon after the explosion in the port of Beirut, where he visited twice. He pledged not to let the country down and to help it reform. He presented a “road map” that was agreed upon by all political parties. It provided for the formation of a mission government to carry out economic and financial reforms. However, Mustapha Adib, the Prime Minister-designate, found it impossible to achieve this and resigned. President Macron then called a press conference on September 27. He booed the entire political class and explicitly accused Hezbollah and the Amal movement and implicitly their ally, President Michel Aoun, of having thwarted his attempt to rescue Lebanon.

President Macron’s arguments convinced only those who do not know the history of Lebanon. On the contrary, our readers know [5] that this country has never been a nation and therefore could never be a democracy. It has been shared by various confessional communities since the Ottoman colonization that coexist there without mixing with each other. This division was institutionalized by the Constitution (1926) inspired by France, a proxy power. Then, its functioning at all levels of the state was set in stone by the United States and Saudi Arabia, during the Taif Agreement (1989) which put an end to the civil war. From this point of view, it is strange, to say the least, to blame political personnel for corrupting the state when it is a direct and inexorable consequence of the institutions imposed on them from abroad.

Above all, it is inadmissible to hear a foreign president posing as a lecturer and declaring that he is ashamed of the Lebanese leaders. Especially since this foreigner represents a nation that has a heavy historical responsibility in the current situation.

It seems that in practice, Lebanon’s sponsors intend to overthrow the corrupt political class they have set up and replace it with a government of technocrats trained in their best schools. This government will be in charge of reforming the finances, restoring the tax haven of Lebanon’s golden age, but above all not to break the confessional system so that the country’s dependence on its sponsors will continue. This country would thus be doomed to remain colonized without admitting it and to behead some of its leaders every thirty or forty years.

In the minds of President Macron’s backers, the unrest in Saudi Arabia has thwarted the plan for a free zone for billionaires, Neom. Lebanon should therefore be used again to escape its own tax obligations.

Let us recall, moreover, that when France established secular institutions, it immediately deprived all its colonies of them, considering that religion was the only way to pacify the peoples it controlled. Lebanon is the only country in the world where a Shiite mullah, a Sunni mufti and a Christian patriarch can impose their views on political parties.

President Macron’s repeated attacks against Hezbollah are precisely in line with my hypothesis: the ultimate goal of the West is to destroy the Resistance and transform Hezbollah into a party as corrupt as the others.

Indeed, according to Emmanuel Macron, the current Hezbollah is at the same time a “militia”, a “terrorist organization” and a political party. Yet, as we have seen, it is in reality both the first non-governmental army dedicated to the struggle against imperialism and a political party representing the Shiite community. It has never been responsible for terrorist actions abroad. According to Macron, it has created “a climate of terror”, inhibiting other political formations. However, Hezbollah has never used its gigantic arsenal against its Lebanese rivals. The brief war of 2008 did not pit it against the Sunnis and Druze, but against those who housed spy centers of foreign powers (notably in the archive premises of FuturTV).

During the press conference, reference was also made to the demand of Hezbollah and Amal to choose the Minister of Finance. This apparently preposterous request is vital for the Resistance. Not to plunder the state, as some imply, but to circumvent US sanctions against the Resistance. Saad Hariri, after opposing it, rallied to it as soon as he grasped what was at stake. This is why, contrary to what President Macron claimed, the failure of the government formation is not attributable to Hezbollah or any other Lebanese formation, but to the French will to break the Resistance.

At the time of the election of President Jacques Chirac, the Saudi proxy, Rafik Hariri, heavily financed his election campaign, causing a memorable incident in the French Constitutional Council. Similarly, during the election of President Emmanuel Macron, Saad Hariri (son of the former president) financed his campaign, albeit on a smaller scale. So when Mr. Macron announced that the international community would save Lebanon financially if it applied its roadmap, Saad Hariri demanded a return on investment, namely 20% of the future sums. After consultation with his main donor, the US-Israeli Henri Kravis, [6] Emmanuel Macron refused and threatened sanctions against the three presidents of Lebanon (of the Republic, the Assembly and the Government).

France calculates on the basis of its historical knowledge of the region. However, it has not understood some of its evolutions, as its failures in Libya, Syria, and in the Iran-US negotiations attest. While it is concerned about Turkey’s influence in Lebanon, it overestimates that of Saudi Arabia and Iran, underestimates that of Syria and ignores that of Russia.

For those who observe precisely what is happening, France is not honest in its concern for Lebanon. Thus, President Macron’s trips had been preceded by the circulation of a petition calling on France to restore its mandate over Lebanon, that is to say, to recolonize it. It was quickly established that this spontaneous petition was an initiative of the French secret service. Or that the French president’s second trip was the centennial of the proclamation of Greater Lebanon by General Henri Gouraud, leader of the French Colonial Party. It is not very difficult to understand what France hopes to get in return for its action against the Resistance.

Posted in France, LebanonComments Off on President Macron’s bad play in Lebanon

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk