flamer84
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2013
- Messages
- 9,435
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
Google Translate folks,sry.
@Gabriel92 I just stumbled on this,how is his gesture discussed in France ? Is it seen as insubordonation,racism ? Are people even paying attention or does the media intentionally ignores it ?
Mr. President of the Republic,
It is not often that a general is for the President to express concern and fear for the future of the French nation. But the day after the inauguration of the museum of immigration, I would like to share my disagreement - probably common to many French - on the mind of a part of your speech on this occasion.
You fustigez there indeed those that stir fear of "dislocation" of France. You will denounce a "sense of dispossession, spoke with malice if not with malice," noting - rightly - that four French comes from immigration and insisting - again rightly - on the need to remind the French of where they come from and what values they carry. You declare once again in favor of foreign voting by stating that "nothing can be done without a revision of the Constitution, which requires a 3/5 majority in Parliament" and call to achieve this, republican forces to take responsibility.
Allow only after having served the state and nation in uniform for forty years, engaged citizen that I am attentive to the changing world and mindful of the interests of France and its people, not militant in any political party as attached to freedom of thought and expression, respectfully door contradiction.
First, it is not correct to say that nothing can be done without amending the Constitution. Indeed, the latter provides in Article 89 a second possibility, namely the referendum. Still take it that our successive governments stop treating the referendum as a plebiscite or worse, suspecting that the result contrary to their wishes they do not use it believing that the people did not have a say on issues that concern yet its future. And the voting rights of EU nationals, for obvious reasons, but you do not want to talk, the people a say. It is ultimately the same sovereign. Do not see it in such a crucial case is simply despise it, which is not likely to favor serenity. The consequences of such contempt, whose people are long accustomed, are disastrous and deadly on the functioning of our democracy. For, frustrated and angry but helpless, citizens increasingly trend to what they see as lax, lack of courage, a denial of reality and therefore a denial on the part of their politicians, wanting revenge is boycotting the voting booth or by giving voice to those who have clearly shown a strategy to intentionally violate the politically correct and without ambiguity. And in the end, when reality is ignored and obscured so responsible and so little for so long, the consequences of such drift is incalculable and unpredictable. Because it indicated too long to citizens that their opinion does not matter. But there comes a time when a people educated in the democratic idea, though tired of being ignored by its elites, may require to be heard.
That said, I fully endorse your point when you insist on the need to remind the French where they come from and the values they carry, but on condition of not considering the history of France begins with the French Revolution and not to accept the delirium of some recently arrived in this country who feel that the story begins with them. France is an old country with a history of two thousand years and is fifteen centuries a Catholic country although secularization has been through it. It therefore has a historical, spiritual and cultural that made what it is and we have to defend, grow and pass.
Listening to you, some of your comments cause misunderstanding that naturally appeals to citizens. Indeed, who deny that the rich legacy of migrants over time is part of the French identity? The answer is clear: no one. Person, for one simple reason is that these migrants, many of us are descendants, have not been included but are integrated and were assimilated by the second generation.
But then, where is the problem? Why is it so difficult today to talk about immigration, become taboo subject? Why do some of our fellow citizens do they feel more at home? Why are we now watered constantly terms like secularism or living together who had until recently not need to be mentioned as these principles were experienced by citizens almost without knowing it, as Monsieur Jourdain wrote prose without knowing it? Their repetitive and indiscriminate use only he is not in fact a recognition confession of a true problem today for the unity of the nation?
The answer is simple but, like others, you do not want to mention: Immigration France has known until the mid-1970s was of European origin, so common culture nurtured by the Christian heritage which is the treasure not only Christians but all over Europe, which facilitated assimilation in the second generation. However, immigration that our country suffers from adopting measures such as family reunification and mass legalization of illegal immigrants between 1981 and 1997, but also those carried out regularly (at least 30 000 per year) - knowing that says regularization, said family reunion in stride - is totally different in nature from culture shaped by Islam. This Islam that knows only the rights of God and does not recognize de facto separation of spiritual and temporal power, nor, consequently, the rights of man. This inevitably leads to intolerable situations and not only resented by our fellow citizens but become dangerous for the future. And while already in 1981, Georges Marchais (character rather positioned to the left of the political spectrum, you will agree) sounded the alarm with his letter - more than ever - addressed to the rector of the Mosque of Paris and published January 16 in the newspaper L'Humanité (*), our leaders have since still nothing changed, ignoring one despite the critical to the future of the nation. It is still not difficult to understand (daily news we demonstrated) that under the blows of a radicalization of the spirits of some of this immigration we run to meet tomorrows painful because culture is not one of our Christian conception of freedom, dignity and respect for the human person and the distinction of powers. Universal values bequeathed by our Greco-Roman and Christian civilization, that of our roots: Athens, Rome and Jerusalem. So you are right, we must remind the French they come from. This makes it possible to highlight the gap between the door and promotes the values of France and those claimed by a party more and more of those who claim Islam and to better understand the reactions of our fellow citizens that you consider mistaken for a withdrawal, rejection of the other that would be marked by "a sense of dispossession, spoke with malice if not with malice." Our citizens are simply lucid and dismayed at this lack of foresight.
For we must also listen to some Muslim religious leaders, on our own soil, which are also not worried by the government: "In Islam the concept of citizenship does not exist, but the community is very important, for recognizing a community is to recognize the laws that govern it. We work to ensure that the concept of community is recognized by the Republic. Then we can build an Islamic community, supported by the laws we have in common with the Republic, and then apply our own laws to our community "-" Assimilation implies that Islamic peoples are based ultimately in the population. This is excluded because it means the abandonment of Islamic law [...] There will be no exceptions to this rule. »
Their message is clear and applied by their followers. To deny or want to hide it is to demonstrate denial of reality and thus compromise the future. Besides, why our parliamentarians were they driven to legislate a ban on headscarves in school? Why a law banning the burqa? Why a charter on secularism in schools? This is proof that Islam is a problem for European societies and that these behavioral differences are not, as some would have us believe, the product of social contexts made in France but imported by an incompatible culture with our traditions and lifestyle.
Cardinal De Richelieu said that "the policy is to make possible what is necessary." And what is needed now is an urgent overhaul of our immigration policy and firm enforcement of our laws. Instead, you affirm once again the need to grant the right to vote (and stand) to non-EU foreigners, keeping you well to ask the opinion of the people. It is necessary that you understand that the introduction of such a right will undoubtedly lead to the emergence of a bicultural society which can only tear as leading to Lebanonisation of our country and thus, ultimately, to the Civil War .
Because by adopting such a measure at a time when integration no longer works due to the number, it is not difficult to understand that pressure groups inevitably put in place to try to impose their demands more . How not to understand that our values, our principles of life, our relationships will be profoundly affected if millions of foreigners from Africa and the Maghreb have their say on the daily life of the city? How not to understand that this is an avenue open to supporters of communitarianism, which is now more aggressive and vindictive communitarianism? It seems that common sense is not a common quality among our politicians. Yet one of the noble tasks of policy is to maintain and sustain the unity of the nation which can exist only if the company has a minimum of internal consistency. It would therefore be time not only to stop accepting but to return to this multitude of endless compromises imposed in fact the French company then that is the one who is welcomed to adapt to his new life and not to the one who receives it. By accepting these drifts, our political leaders encourage the ante with unacceptable and intolerable claims that led, among others - is still mind boggling - introducing barbaric methods in the slaughter of animals contrary to our traditions and principles of a civilized society, or that our laws are not applied everywhere because not accepted by some.
Thus, a crisis of identity is imposed on our nation, for it is indeed what it is. She would never have happened if our political leaders had worked, and has been for forty years, for the common good and in the interest of the nation. And common sense would dictate that it is recalled or that we learn this non-European immigration that misery in which she lived before moving to our country is largely the result of its culture closed to the knowledge and progress . The logical consequence is that it must be aware and decide to become part of the society that has welcomed and that offers it finally decent living conditions. It has to blend in, as others have done, for a successful new life and give her children the prospects of success in a new culture that will gradually adopt to enroll his descendants. And he who rejects this agreement, has no place here. Even school he would have abandoned a foolish and suicidal system it applies and maintains for forty years and is a powerful barrier to the integration of young immigrants despite successive opinion of the High Council to Integration and curiously ignored. Thus our school prepares tomorrow that will be difficult to violence as the only means of expression. However, it was understood, the problem with this immigration is not so much the country of origin as the culture that unites. It is shaped by Islam that is, it must be admitted, incompatible with our democratic European societies. Moreover, these same immigrants and their children born in the country and called to be French to 18 by the law of the soil (90,000 annually) remain very viscerally attached to the nationality of the country of origin and their religion they pay allegiance to most. And the first results of such a suicidal policy of the National Education materialized with the riots the country has experienced in late 2005. They recur. A decade later, things got worse with time bombs posed Merah Nemmouche, Kelkhal, and other jihadists in our cities whose ranks are growing to meet today, we must be clear , thousands of potentially dangerous individuals. How to interpret the ICM Research poll which reveals that 27% of 18 to 24 and 22% of 25 to 34 years in our country have a favorable opinion of the Islamic State? This should not call it our politicians and get them to draw conclusions by reviewing their idyllic and angelic vision of this "dream France 2025" that could turn into a nightmare? To govern is not that expected?
Then a nagging question nagging loyal citizens to their roots and committed to the values that have made France: how many immigrants from different cultures can a society accommodate without breaking his identity balance, without jeopardizing its identity and therefore its unit ? Can you admit that the citizens do not understand the interest that there is to foster a transformation of our forced march identity by welcoming more and more immigrants from other cultures, even hostile to ours, which is that while most a simple financial standpoint our country can not afford it? It's a simple matter of common sense, not a xenophobic reaction would be "met with malice and malignity."
It is true that in our country for many years, the bienpensance and political correctness reigns in the minds of most of our political leaders as well as in a large part of our media unable to deal with the facts objectively but however quick to act as prosecutors and judges with regard to those trying to warn of the dangers facing our country sounding the tocsin. The case of the eviction of the journalist / writer Eric Zemmour by a television channel is symptomatic of this attitude akin to intellectual terrorism. But Chamfort had he not said: "In France, we let rest those who put fire and persecute those sounding the alarm"?
Please accept, Mr. President of the Republic, the assurances of my highest consideration.
General (2s) Anthony Martinez
@Gabriel92 I just stumbled on this,how is his gesture discussed in France ? Is it seen as insubordonation,racism ? Are people even paying attention or does the media intentionally ignores it ?
