Thursday, 10 May 2012

One of the stories I missed during my recent hiatus was that the French writer Renaud Camus had been dropped by his publishers after declaring his support for Marine Le Pen in Le Monde. Camus was himself a candidate for the French presidency (with his Party of In-nocence) but had to withdraw having failed to reach the 500 mayoral signatures required to stand. Here are some extracts from his Le Monde article.
The Party of In-nocence, that is to say non-nocence [non-harm], the absence of harm, is founded on the principles of civic responsibility, of civility, of civilisation, urbanity, respect for the word and non-aggression, whether with regard to persons, goods, nature or heritage. It is attached to French culture and civilisation, which it considers to be among the most precious that humanity has elaborated in its long effort to create a pact of communal existence arranging at the same time for freedom, dignity, spiritual elevation and the happiness of the greatest number.

It notes that mass immigration and the ensuing change of people, which is apparent for all to see, France is confronted with the most profound shock, the most radical in its consequences that is has experienced in fifteen or sixteen centuries.

It notes that this extraordinary transformation is not on the agenda of political debate, even though the economic crisis or debt are secondary issues by comparison. Christopher Caldwell (author of Une révolution sous nos yeux - Comment l'islam va transformer la France et l'Europe [A Revolution Beneath our Eyes - How Islam is going to Transform France and Europe - published as "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe" in English], Toucan editions, 2011) asks if Europe can be the same with another population: it is clear that the answer is no. The Socialist Party publishes a manifesto book called "Pour changer de civilisation" (Odile Jacob, 2011). We are those who, on the contrary, refuse to change civilisation.


...It's about blocking the change of people, of firmly refusing the continuation of immigration and, if possible, of sketching out its reversal for those of the immigrants whose attitudes would imply, for our country, a change of civilisation.
Source: Le Monde, also available here

He also explains that, although Jean-Marie Le Pen had been most clear-sighted about what immigration was doing to France, he felt it impossible to vote for him because of his remark that the Nazi gas chambers were "a detail of history". His replacement as leader of the Front National by Marine Le Pen removed that inhibition.

Almost immediately after his Le Pen endorsement was published in Le Monde, it was announced that he was being dropped by his publisher "officially for economic reasons". This was met with glee by the left-wing press. Les Inrocks declared that:
freedom of expression doesn't apply only to authors but to editors too: a publisher has the right express itself against one of its authors, to say it no longer wants to publish a fascist.

3 comments:

DP111 said...

Every nation is a laboratory. Just examine the countries of origin of nonwhite immigrants to extrapolate on the nature of society they will create.

Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Palestinian territories, Sudan, Eritrea (in fact any Muslim country), Nigeria (any African country), West Indies, you name it.

Our gifted and all knowing politicians have turned a once peaceful, law abiding country into multicultural Bedlam.

Anonymous said...

Signs of social control internationally
- Shutting down freedom of expression

"freedom of expression doesn't apply only to authors but to editors too: a publisher has the right express itself against one of its authors, to say it no longer wants to publish a fascist. "

**

"We must dare not to take that discussion"
Ali Esbati, one of Breivik's potential targets at Utøya

The way these two quotations are expressions of the same, is remarkable. It is the "quality mark" of those who want more social control and lesser individual freedom. In other words, more sharia.

Anonymous said...

Esbati talks about his statement of 2009, on his own blog.

The debate in question, was whether islam could be discussed on "the right's premises". - A parallel to the above quote "the right (to) express itself against one of its authors, to say it no longer wants to publish a fascist. "

Islam can only be discussed(...) when the "scholars" decide what is allowed to be expressed. In other words, there can never be any debate.

Diversity Macht Frei

Iostream

Share It

Search

Loading...

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews