France’s greatest living author Michel Houellebecq says Europe will be “swept away” by mass migration, adding that he was “shocked” that the ‘great replacement’ is treated as a conspiracy theory.
Houellebecq made the comments during a conversation with French philosopher Michel Onfray.
“The Great Replacement, I was shocked it’s called a theory. It’s not a theory, it’s a fact,”said Houellebecq. “When it comes to immigration, nobody controls anything, that’s the whole problem. Europe will be swept away by this cataclysm.”
Onfray agreed with him, asserting, “It’s objectively what the figures say,” in relation to the issue of massive demographic change.
Houellebecq / Onfray (Front Populaire)
Le grand remplacement, j'ai été choqué qu'on appelle ça une théorie, ce n'est pas une théorie, c'est un fait.
En matière d'immigration personne ne contrôle rien, c'est bien là tout le problème L'Europe sera emportée par ce cataclysme pic.twitter.com/4ebZA3KLgB
“The fact that France’s greatest living writer, as he is often described by the mainstream press, has said the Great Replacement is fact will only add to the growing body of intellectuals, academics, and politicians who have increasingly been willing to describe the Great Replacement in public forums,” remarks John Cody.
While Onfray believes most of the migrants (many of whom are Muslim) will simply turn into consumers like everyone else, Houellebecq sees a far more violent future of “reverse Bataclans.”
“When entire territories are under Islamist control, I think acts of resistance will take place. There will be attacks and shootings in mosques,” said Houellebecq.
During a television debate back in January, French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut said it would take a “fanatical denial of reality” to disregard the “spectacular” demographic changes that are taking place in Europe.
A poll taken in April last year found that the majority of French citizens thought some form of “civil war” was likely as a result of failed multiculturalism and attacks on French identity.
The so-called ‘Great Replacement’ is the idea that leftist politicians are deliberately encouraging rapid levels of mass migration in order to replace native people with migrants whose descendants are more likely to vote for left-wing parties.
Whenever someone on the right suggests this is happening, they are vilified as a dangerous extremist, but whenever someone on the left points to the phenomenon as a good thing, they are lauded as a progressive thinker.
As we previously highlighted, new census figures out of the UK show that white Brits now make up less than 75% of the population in England and Wales.
Across England’s three biggest cities – Manchester, Birmingham and London, white Brits now represent a minority of the population.
Araud condemned US diplomats for insisting that Washington must always be the “leader” of the world, and stressed that the West should work with other countries in the Global South, “on an equal basis,” in order “to find a compromise with our own interests.”He cautioned against making “maximalist” demands, “of simply trying to keep the Western hegemony.”
Araud argued that if the international community is serious about creating a “rules-based order,” it must entail “integrating all the major stakeholders into the managing of the world, you know really bringing the Chinese, the Indians, and really other countries, and trying to build with them, on an equal basis, the world of tomorrow.”
France’s ex-US Ambassador Gérard Araud criticized Washington for frequently violating international law and said its so-called “rules-based order” is an unfair “Western order” based on “hegemony.” He condemned the new cold war on China, instead calling for mutual compromises.
France’s former ambassador to the United States, Gérard Araud, has publicly criticized Washington, saying it frequently violates international law and that its so-called “rules-based order” is actually an unfair “Western order.”
The top French diplomat warned that the United States is engaged in “economic warfare” against China and that Europe is concerned about Washington’s “containment policy,” because many European countries do not want to be forced to “choose a camp” in a new cold war.
Araud condemned US diplomats for insisting that Washington must always be the “leader” of the world, and stressed that the West should work with other countries in the Global South, “on an equal basis,” in order “to find a compromise with our own interests.”
He cautioned against making “maximalist” demands, “of simply trying to keep the Western hegemony.”
Araud made these remarks in a November 14 panel discussion titled “Is America Ready for a Multipolar World?“, hosted by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think tank in Washington, DC that advocates for a more restrained, less bellicose foreign policy.
Gérard Araud’s credentials could hardly be any more elite. A retired senior French diplomat, he served as the country’s ambassador to the United States from 2014 to 2019. From 2009 to 2014, he was Paris’ representative to the United Nations.
Before that, Araud served as France’s ambassador to Israel, and he previously worked with NATO.
This blue-blooded background makes Araud’s frank comments even more important, as they reflect the feelings of a segment of the French ruling class and European political class, which is uncomfortable with Washington’s unipolar domination and wants power to be more decentralized in the world.
The ‘rules-based order’ is actually just a ‘Western order’
In a shockingly blunt moment in the panel discussion, Gérard Araud explained that the so-called “rules-based order” is actually just a “Western order,” and that the United States and Europe unfairly dominate international organizations like the United Nations, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund (IMF):
To be frank, I’ve always been extremely skeptical about this idea of a ‘rules-based order.’
Personally, for instance, look, I was the permanent representative to the United Nations. We love the United Nations, but the Americans not too much, you know.
And actually when you look at the hierarchy of the United Nations, everybody there is ours. The Secretary General [António Guterres] is Portuguese. He was South Korean [Ban Ki-moon]. But when you look at all the under secretaries general, all of them really are either American, French, British, and so on. When you look at the World Bank, when you look at the IMF, and so on.
So that’s the first element: this order is our order.
And the second element is also that, actually, this order is reflecting the balance of power in 1945. You know, you look at the permanent members of the Security Council.
Really people forget that, if China and Russia are obliged to oppose [with] their veto, it is because frankly the Security Council is most of the time, 95% of the time, has a Western-oriented majority.
So this order frankly – and you can also be sarcastic, because, when the Americans basically want to do whatever they want, including when it’s against international law, as they define it, they do it.
And that’s the vision that the rest of the world has of this order.
You know really, when I was in – the United Nations is a fascinating spot because you have ambassadors of all the countries, and you can have conversations with them, and the vision they project of the world, their vision of the world, is certainly not a ‘rules-based order’; it’s a Western order.
And they accuse us of double standards, hypocrisy, and so on and so on.
So I’m not sure that this question about the ‘rules’ is really the critical question.
I think the first assessment that we should do will be maybe, as we say in French, to put ourselves in the shoes of the other side, to try to understand how they see the world.
Araud argued that if the international community is serious about creating a “rules-based order,” it must entail “integrating all the major stakeholders into the managing of the world, you know really bringing the Chinese, the Indians, and really other countries, and trying to build with them, on an equal basis, the world of tomorrow.”
“That’s the only way,” he added. “We should really ask the Indians, ask the Chinese, the Brazilians, and other countries, really to work with us on an equal basis. And that’s something – it’s not only the Americans, also the Westerners, you know, really trying to get out of our moral high ground, and to understand that they have their own interests, that on some issues we should work together, on other issues we shouldn’t work together.”
“Let’s not try to rebuild the Fortress West,” he implored. “It shouldn’t be the future of our foreign policy.”
French diplomat criticizes US new cold war on China
Gérard Araud revealed that, in Europe, there is “concern” that the United States has a “containment policy” against China.
“I think the international relationship will be largely dominated by the rivalry between China and the United States. And foreign policy I think in the coming years will be to find the modus vivendi … between the two powers,” he said.
He warned that Washington is engaged in “economic warfare” against Beijing, that the US is trying “basically to cut any relationship with China in the field of advanced chips, which is sending a message of, ‘We are going to try to prevent you from becoming an advanced economy.’ It’s really, it’s economic warfare.”
“Really on the American side is the development of economic warfare against China. It’s really cutting, making impossible cooperation in a very important, critical field, for the future of the Chinese economy,” he added.
Araud pointed out that China is not just “emerging”; it is in fact “re-emerging” to a prominent geopolitical position, like it had for hundreds of years, before the rise of European colonialism.
He stressed that many countries in Asia don’t want to be forced to pick a side in this new cold war, and are afraid of becoming a zone of proxy conflicts like Europe was in the first cold war:
Asia doesn’t want to be the Europe of the Cold War. They don’t want to have a bamboo curtain. They don’t want to choose their camp.
Australia has chosen its camp, but it’s a particular case. But Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, they don’t want to choose their camp, and we shouldn’t demand they choose their camp.
So we need to have a flexible policy of talking to the Chinese, because talking is also a way of reassuring them, trying to understand their interests, and also to define our interests not in a maximalist way, of simply trying to keep the Western hegemony.
Araud challenged the idea that the United States must be the unipolar “leader” of the world, stating:
The Americans entered the world, in a sense, being already the big boy on the block. In 1945, it was 40% of the world’s GDP.
Which also may explain what is American diplomacy. The word of American diplomats, the word of American diplomacy is ‘leadership.’
Really, it’s always striking for foreigners, as soon as there is a debate about American foreign policy, immediately people say, ‘We have to restore our leadership.’ Leadership. And other countries may say, ‘Why leadership?’
West must ‘try to see the world from Beijing’
Gérard Araud similarly criticized Western media outlets for their cartoonishly negative coverage of China. The top French diplomat called on officials to “try to see the world from Beijing”:
When you look at the European or Western newspapers, you have the impression that China is a sort of a dark monster which is moving forward, never committing a mistake, never really facing any problem, and going to the domination of the world – you know, the Chinese work 20 hours a day, they don’t want a vacation, they don’t care, they want to dominate the world.
Maybe if we will try to see the world from Beijing, really we will consider certainly that all the borders of China are more or less unstable, or threatened, or facing unfriendly countries, and that’s from the Chinese point of view.
Maybe they want to improve their situation. It doesn’t mean that we have to accept it, but maybe to see, to remember, that any defensive measure of one side is always seen as offensive by the other side.
So let’s understand that China has its own interests. You know, even dictatorships have legitimate interests. And so let’s look at these interests, and let’s try to find a compromise with our own interests.
Araud went on to point out that the US government is constantly militarily threatening China, sending warships across the planet to its coasts, but would never for a second tolerate Beijing doing the same to it:
When I was in Washington, just after the [hawkish anti-China] speech of Vice President Pence to the Hudson [Institute] in October 2018, I met a lot of specialists on China in Washington, DC, but when I was trying to tell them, you know, your [US] ships are patrolling at 200 miles from the Chinese coast, at 5000 miles from the American coast, what would be your reaction if Chinese ships were patrolling at 200 miles from your coast?
And obviously, my interlocutors didn’t understand what I meant. And that’s the question, you know, really trying to figure out what are the reasonable interests of the other side.
Araud stressed that China “is not a military threat” to the West.
French diplomat: Western sanctions on Russia are causing us to ‘inflict pain on ourselves
With this new cold war between the United States and China, Gérard Araud explained, “in this context, Russia is a bit like Austria-Hungary with Germany before the First World War, is a bit doomed to be the ‘brilliant second’ of China.”
While Araud harshly denounced Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, he also criticized the Western sanctions on Moscow, which he cautioned, “on the European side, it is inflicting to ourselves some pain.”
He warned that Europe is in a “dead end” with Russia, “because as long as the war in Ukraine will go on, and my bet, unfortunately, is that it may go on for a long time, it will be impossible for the Europeans, and the Americans in a sense, but also for the Europeans to end the sanctions on Russia, which means that our relationship with Russia may be frozen for an indefinite future.”
“And I think it’s very difficult to have diplomatic activity [with Russia] in this situation,” he added.
You can watch the full panel discussion hosted by the Quincy Institute below:
*
Featured image: France’s Ambassador to the US Gérard Araud with President Barack Obama in the White House in 2016 (Source: Multipolarista)
Mali declared a ban this week on the activities of non-governmental organizations within the country that receive funding from France. The move came in the wake of France’s decision to withdraw development aid to the country as its final troops pull out of the Sahel region, marking the end of the eight-year Operation Barkhane.
What started as a counterterrorism operation in Mali had until recently begun to take the shape of a showcase for French President Emmanuel Macron’s vision of an integrated European defense. Now that dream seems to be falling apart due to an overstayed welcome and less-than-stellar performance. Whose fault is that? Russia’s, according to Macron.
The fact that there were three coups in Mali in the space of a decade is pretty much all one needs to know about the “success” of France’s ongoing security and stability operation. Play around with a revolving door long enough and you’ll get smacked right in the face. This is exactly what happened when France was ultimately kicked out earlier this year by the most recent interim government.
Macron then said that the French troop drawdown would happen gradually, as though he was still calling the shots on a former French colony. The message from Mali was clear: You’ll get out now. So then Macron said that French troops would just redeploy elsewhere to the Sahel region. But on November 7, he announced that the Sahel mission was ending as well, despite French troops still remaining in Chad and Niger. Nonetheless, Macron said that within six months there would be a new French military strategy for Africa. No doubt geared primarily towards finding a way to stick around as an eventual pretext for getting Western hands on the African natural resources that Europe desperately needs. Because that’s what it has always been about. Just consider the darkly hilarious spectacle of Patrick Pouyanné, the CEO of France’s multinational, Total Energies, asking the EU to send him military assistance in Mozambique a couple of years ago, citing the growing presence of Daesh (ISIS). Which is an indication that once Western industry has successfully planted its feet inside a country and secured its resources, fighting terrorism doesn’t really matter so much anymore.
African political experts here in Paris have been saying for the past few years that the French operation in the Sahel had worn out its welcome and that its anti-jihadism effectiveness was highly doubtful, if not disastrous. You’d think that would have led to some soul-searching on Paris’ part, particularly when anti-French sentiment is multiplying on the continent, with protests in Burkina Faso also sparking debate over troop presence there.
But, before any introspection even had a chance, Macron found a scapegoat for Paris and Europe’s African failures: Russia.
“A number of powers, who want to spread their influence in Africa, are doing this to hurt France, hurt its language, sow doubts, but above all pursue certain interests,”Macron said this week at a Francophone conference in Tunisia, citing a “predatory project” by Russia to push “disinformation.” Macron still seems sore about the fact that, when the Malian government kicked French troops out, they opted instead for more security cooperation with Russia, with the latest of such agreements signed just this week during Mali Interior Minister Daoud Aly Mohammedine’s visit to the Kremlin.
There’s no way that Macron is naive enough to think that global competition doesn’t exist. Nor is he oblivious to the fact that countries are constantly selling themselves as partners to other nations. That’s what a nation’s entire diplomatic corps is for. They’re glorified sales and PR people. And, if amid France’s security cooperation in Mali, jihadists are running rampant and coups d’état are happening, then why shouldn’t that country exercise its sovereign right to choose a different security provider? Rather than assume responsibility, it’s easier for Macron to blame Russia for France’s failures and it fits with the current dominant Western narrative.
Two years ago, Facebook said it had put its finger on what it claimed to be duelling online influence efforts in the Central African Republic by “individuals associated with the French military” squaring off against others they linked to Russia. The incident underscores that Paris is neck-deep in efforts to save its footprint in Africa using all of the tools at its disposal, including influence operations in which Macron publicly pretends France and its allies would never engage.
Mali apparently begs to differ. Of all the possible efforts by various countries attempting to compete for partnerships in Africa, Mali has just singled out France by banning its ability to use in-country NGOs as proxies in support of Paris’ agenda. So, despite Macron’s accusations that Russia is gaining a foothold in Africa through “disinformation,” it’s France’s own influence operations that African countries like Mali are actually denouncing.
If you had to choose between living under an extremely oppressive world government or living through a nuclear war, which one would be your choice? Personally, I don’t like either of those two options, but in recent days western leaders have been trying to convince us that we will either have one or the other. According to them, either we can submit to a “global order” that is dominated by the values and the agenda of the western elite or we can accept a multipolar world which will eventually lead to widespread chaos and nuclear war. Needless to say, western politicians are going to try very hard to get us to choose the former.
On Friday, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a speech at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Bangkok even though France is not actually a member.
During that speech, Macron lamented the fact that rapidly deteriorating relations between the U.S. and China are tearing the world apart, and he boldly declared that what we really need is “a single world order”…
French President Emmanuel Macron called for world government in a speech Friday, claiming it would avoid conflicts between competing superpowers.
“We need a single world order,” Macron told the audience at the ongoing Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Bangkok, Thailand.
“Are you on the U.S. side or the China side?” Macron asked rhetorically. “Because now, progressively, a lot of people would like to see that there are two orders in this world.”
“This is a huge mistake — even for both the U.S. and China,” he added after comparing the two superpowers to “big elephants” in the geopolitical “jungle.”
Of course when he says that we need a “single world order” he is not suggesting one in which nations such as China and Russia are equal partners.
What Macron and other western leaders envision is a global system that is governed by western rules and western values.
As he delivered his line about a “single global order”, Macron slowed down and pronounced each of the words with special emphasis.
In case you still think it’s a conspiracy theory that our elites want a world order, here’s French President @EmmanuelMacron yesterday at the APEC summit:
I have a feeling that Macron can picture himself leading a “single global order” someday.
Such delusions of grandeur can be extremely dangerous.
Meanwhile, other western leaders such as U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin are warning that a truly multipolar world would be one that would inevitably lead to nuclear confrontation and nuclear conflict…
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned Saturday Russia’s invasion of Ukraine offers a preview of a world where nuclear-armed countries could threaten other nations and said Beijing, like Moscow, seeks a world where might makes right.
Austin made the remarks at the annual Halifax International Security Forum, which attracts defense and security officials from Western democracies.
Politicians all over the western world have been talking a lot about the threat of nuclear war lately.
I think that they are trying to use the threat of nuclear war as a scare tactic in order to advance their agenda because if they were truly concerned about nuclear war they would be working really hard to stop one from happening.
But instead of pursuing peace with China and Russia through diplomatic means, western leaders seem to have decided that now is the time to get really tough with China and Russia.
Ultimately, our leaders would love to see both regimes collapse and be replaced by governments that are ready to embrace western values and a “single global order” that is led by the western nations.
Western politicians keep hoping that the war in Ukraine will lead to such an outcome in Russia, and I am sure that they are trying to figure out how to use the coming Chinese invasion of Taiwan to bring about such an outcome in China.
We have seen so many governments get toppled over the decades, and now the western elite are going after the two biggest fish in the pond.
But by being so aggressive, they are literally bringing us to the brink of nuclear conflict.
Earlier this year, a study was released that concluded that a full-blown nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia would result in billions of deaths.
But only about 360 million people would be killed by the original nuclear exchange.
That is the good news.
The bad news is that about 5 billion people would starve to death during the nuclear winter that would follow…
According to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature Food in August 2022,[139] a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia, which together hold more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, would kill 360 million people directly and more than 5 billion indirectly by starvation during a nuclear winter.[140][141]
In the aftermath of a full-blown nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia, global temperatures would plunge dramatically because of all the soot that is injected into the atmosphere…
“A war between the United States, its allies and Russia — who possess more than 90% of the global nuclear arsenal — could produce more than 150 teragrams of soot and a nuclear winter,” the study reads.
A teragram is a unit of measurement equal to 1 trillion grams and models show that soot injections into the atmosphere larger than 5 teragrams would lead to mass food shortages in almost all countries.
In the scenario of a war between the United States and Russia, the global average calorie production from crops would decrease by around 90% within four years after the nuclear war. Nuclear war would also reduce the global fish supply.
People in most nations would consume fewer calories than their bodies burn at rest and more than 5 billion people would die by the end of the second year.
Western leaders are trying to convince us that the way to avoid such a fate is to embrace their vision of a “single world order” that is led by them.
And the truth is that there are a whole lot of people out there that would be more than willing to give up their freedoms for the security of a one world government.
Intelligence services worry about American economic warfare more than terrorism or the prospect of confrontation with Russia or China
It was clearly not for nothing that veteran US grand strategist and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once remarked, “to be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.”
New research published by France’s Ecole de Guerre Economique has revealed some extraordinary findings about who and what the French intelligence services fear most when it comes to threats to the country’s economy.
The findings are based on extensive research and interviews with French intelligence experts, including representatives of spy agencies, and so reflect the positions and thinking of specialists in the under-researched field of economic warfare. Their collective view is very clear – 97 percent consider the US to be the foreign power that “most threatens” the “economic interests” of Paris.
Who is your true enemy?
The research was conducted to answer the question, “what will become of France in an increasingly exacerbated context of economic war?”. This query has become increasingly urgent for the EU as Western sanctions on Moscow’s exports, in particular energy, have had a catastrophic effect on European countries, but have not had the predicted effect Russia. Nor have they hurt the US, the country pushing most aggressively for these measures.
Yet, the question is not being asked in other EU capitals. It is precisely the continent-wide failure, or unwillingness at least, to consider the “negative repercussions on the daily lives” of European citizens that inspired the Ecole de Guerre Economique report.
As the report’s lead author Christian Harbulot explains, ever since the end of World War II, France has “lived in a state of the unspoken,” as have other European countries.
At the conclusion of that conflict, “manifest fear” among French elites of the Communist Party taking power in France “strongly incited a part of the political class to place our security in the hands of the US, in particular by calling for the establishment of permanent military bases in France.”
“It goes without saying that everything has its price. The compensation for this aid from across the Atlantic was to make us enter into a state of global dependence – monetary, financial, technological – with regard to the US,” Harbulot says. And aside from 1958 – 1965 when General Charles de Gaulle attempted to increase the autonomy of Paris from Washington and NATO, French leaders have “fallen into line.”
This acceptance means aside from rare public scandals such as the sale of French assets to US companies, or Australia cancelling its purchase of French-made submarines in favor of a controversial deal with the US and UK (AUKUS), there is little recognition – let alone discussion – in the mainstream as to how Washington exerts a significant degree of control over France’s economy, and therefore politics.
As a result, politicians and the public alike struggle to identify “who their enemy” truly is. “In spheres of power” across Europe, Harbulot says, “it is customary to keep this kind of problem silent,” and economic warfare remains an “underground confrontation which precedes, accompanies and then takes over from classic military conflicts.”
This in turn means any debate about “hostility or harmfulness” in Europe’s relations with Washington misses the underlying point that “the US seeks to ensure its supremacy over the world, without displaying itself as a traditional empire.”
The EU might have a trade surplus of 150 billion euros with the US, but the latter would never willingly allow this economic advantage to translate to “strategic autonomy” from it. And this gain is achieved against the constant backdrop of – and more than offset by – “strong geopolitical and military pressure” from the US at all times.
I spy with my Five Eyes
Harbulot believes the “state of the unspoken” to be even more pronounced in Germany, as Berlin “seeks to establish a new form of supremacy within Europe” based on its dependency on the US.
As France “is not in a phase of power building but rather in a search to preserve its power” – a “very different” state of affairs – this should mean the French can more easily recognize and admit to toxic dependency on Washington and see it as a problem that must be resolved.
It is certainly hard to imagine such an illuminating and honest report being produced by a Berlin-based academic institute, despite the country being the most badly affected by anti-Russian sanctions. Some analysts have spoken of a possible deindustrialization of Germany, as its inability to power energy-intensive economic sectors has destroyed its 30-year-long trade surplus – maybe forever.
But aside from France’s “dependency” on Washington being different to that of Germany, Paris has other reasons for cultivating a “culture of economic combat,” and keeping very close track of the “foreign interests” that are harming the country’s economy and companies.
A US National Security Agency spying order sent to other members of the Five Eyes global spying network – Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK – released by WikiLeaks, shows that since at least 2002 Washington has issued its English-speaking allies annual “information need” requests, seeking any and all information they can dig up on the economic activities of French companies, the economic and trade policies of France’s government, and the views of Paris on the yearly G8 and G20 summits.
Whatever is unearthed is shared with key US economic decision-makers and departments, including the Federal Reserve and Treasury, as well as intelligence agencies, such as the CIA. Another classified WikiLeaks release shows that the latter – between November 2011 and July 2012 – employed spies from across the Five Eyes (OREA) to infiltrate and monitor the campaigns of parties and candidates in France’s presidential election.
Washington was particularly worried about a Socialist Party victory, and so sought information on a variety of topics, “to prepare key US policymakers for the post-election French political landscape and the potential impact on US-France relations.” Of particular interest was “the presidential candidates’ views on the French economy, what current economic policies…they see as not working, and what policies…they promote to help boost France’s economic growth prospects[.]”
The CIA was also very interested in the “views and characterization” of the US on the part of presidential candidates, and any efforts by them and the parties they represented to “reach out to leaders of other countries,” including some of the states that form the Five Eyes network itself.
Naturally, those members would be unaware that their friends in Washington, and other Five Eyes capitals, would be spying on them while they spied on France.
It was clearly not for nothing that veteran US grand strategist and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once remarked, “to be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.”
Moscow blasted the move to sanction Russian media as “political persecution,” with Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova calling it “an irreversible devaluation of European norms and values as well as the decline of the EU justice system.”
The European Union slapped harsh sanctions on almost all things Russian after Moscow launched its military operation in Ukraine. Russian media has also been subject to restrictions, with Brussels blocking many media outlets, including Sputnik and RT.
Rumble has announced that it is going to disable access to its service in France after Paris demanded that the video-hosting platform remove Russian news sources.
“As part of our mission to restore a free and open internet, we have committed not to move the goalposts on our content policies,” the company said in a statement. “Users with unpopular views are free to access our platform on the same terms as our millions of other users.”
The company also said it challenges the legality of the French government’s demands, pledging that the decision to turn off France “will not have a material effect on our business, as France represents less than one percent of our users.”
“The French people, however, will lose access to a wide range of Rumble content because of these government demands. We hope that the French government reconsiders its decision so we can restore access soon,” Rumble concluded.
The company’s head, Chris Pavlovlsky, drew parallels between himself and the new owner of Twitter, Elon Musk, when commenting on the decision. He underlined that just like the Tesla and SpaceX founder, he will not change his company’s policy “for any foreign government.”
Earlier, in March, Musk said that Starlink had received demands from “some governments (not Ukraine) to block Russian news sources.”
“We will not do so unless at gunpoint. Sorry to be a free speech absolutist,” Musk said at the time.
Russian media outlets, Sputnik and RT among them, have been slapped with EU sanctions imposed after the beginning of Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine. In early March, the EU banned the broadcasting and distribution of Sputnik and RT content as part of the sanctions and suspended the relevant licenses.
Moscow blasted the move to sanction Russian media as “political persecution,” with Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova calling it “an irreversible devaluation of European norms and values as well as the decline of the EU justice system.”
In Canada, our federal gov is set to allow almost half a million immigrants next year in order to keep wages low. We have learned nothing from the failures of mass immigration programs that were tried in Sweden, Germany, and France.
After Macron admitted half of all crimes in Paris were committed by foreigners.
After French President Emmanuel Macron acknowledged that half of all crimes in Paris were committed by foreigners, it has now been revealed that they also account for 70 percent of all violent robberies.
During an appearance on France 2 television channel last month, Macron admitted, “Yes, when we look at crime in Paris, we cannot fail to see that at least half of the crime we observe come from people who are foreigners, either who are in an irregular situation or awaiting asylum.”
This was subsequently confirmed by the Ministry of the Interior, which clarified that during the first six months of 2022, “48 percent of those questioned for acts of delinquency in Paris are foreigners.”
“However, the Paris police headquarters also sent information on Oct. 29 that for the first six months of 2022, foreigners were vastly overrepresented in certain serious offenses,” reports Remix News.
“This group was responsible for 70.4 percent of violent robberies and 75.6 percent of simple thefts, according to data from the police headquarters and the ministerial statistical service for internal security.”
This means that the foreign population of Paris, which stands at 15 percent, is vastly overrepresented in committing 70 percent of violent robberies.
However, Macron is still absurdly refusing to accept the direct link between immigration and insecurity, leading to him being mocked on Twitter by National Rally leader Marine Le Pen.
Arriver à dire quasiment dans la même phrase, comme l’a fait Emmanuel Macron, que la moitié des délits à Paris sont le fait d’étrangers et qu’il n’y a pas de lien entre délinquance et immigration, il fallait quand même le faire !
Arriver à dire quasiment dans la même phrase, comme l’a fait Emmanuel Macron, que la moitié des délits à Paris sont le fait d’étrangers et qu’il n’y a pas de lien entre délinquance et immigration, il fallait quand même le faire !
“To be able to say almost in the same sentence, as Emmanuel Macron did, that half of the crimes in Paris are committed by foreigners and that there is no link between delinquency and immigration, we still had to do it!” she tweeted.
France continues to massively struggle with integrating huge numbers of migrants and descendents of migrants who are prone to criminality and violence. Entire areas of major cities have been declared “lawless,” and police are routinely attacked if they dare enter.
Last year, a group of 93 former police officers warned that areas of the country have become “lost territory” thanks to illegal immigration and rampant criminality.
Back in May, the final of the Champions League to be delayed after people described as “local youths” stormed stadium security, vaulting fences and entering the ground without tickets as well as carrying out countless robberies and assaults on tourists visiting for the game who they saw as easy prey.
The media falsely blamed Liverpool fans for the chaos, when in reality footage and eyewitness testimony spoke to large numbers of migrants, some from crime gangs, deliberately targeting innocent supporters.
As we document in the video below, concerns over migrant-linked crime in France were heightened after the gruesome murder of a 12-year-old girl called Lola in Paris by an Algerian migrant who was in the country illegally.
Official data shows that President Emmanuel Macron’s government has been totally inept at deporting illegal migrants, with only 0.2 per cent of Algerians given deportation orders actually being forced to leave France.
” I am impressed by the surrender of the whole Brussels area to NATO directives. In the spirit of a past Atlanticism, European politicians are hurting their countries in order to enrich Uncle Sam”
Philippe de Villiers is a novelist, entrepreneur, and politician from France. He recently gave an intriguing interview to Le Figaro. Some of the parts are translated below.
“I’m not sure what Putin is doing. At the same time, I am impressed by the surrender of the whole Brussels area to NATO directives. In the spirit of a past Atlanticism, European politicians are hurting their countries in order to enrich Uncle Sam, who is gaining the full benefits of the conflict from his oil shale. It is becoming evident that the European Union is essentially an extension of NATO. France is not acting like a world power. Turkey is filling the position of mediator that France was intended to perform. The Commissioners in Brussels are America’s guards.”
“France is becoming America’s campus, and our elites are adopting a new religion in which paradise is racialized, intersectionalized, and sexualized, and “white males,” Western men”, are being beaten at the gates of hell, doomed by their masculinity, their “toxic masculinity,” and “systemic racism.” How lower we can go? Poor Benville* must be turning in his grave: ‘France is a better kind. It is a nation.”`
“The Maastricht utopia witnessed an unparalleled event in the history of European nations: the annihilation of politics. European construction was only a show. It was, in fact, deconstruction. The goal was not to establish a new political organization but to put an end to politics. The concept of country annihilation was behind this apolitical structure. And there was no indication of a new one. So here we are now, with a Europe without body, soul, and roots. Europe is an ideological orphan, that seeks to suffocate the rebellion of the other Europe, the sensual Europe of Poles, Hungarians, and Italians.”
The West can help stop “war crimes” allegedly carried out by Ukrainian forces if it uses its influence over Kiev and ceases the supply of weapons to the country, Russian President Vladimir Putin told his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron on Tuesday, according to the Kremlin.
During their phone conversation, which reportedly lasted for more than two hours, Putin congratulated Macron on his recent re-election and updated him on developments in Ukraine, including the evacuation of civilians from the Azovstal plant in Mariupol, according to a readout of the call.
Putin claimed EU nations have ignored “the war crimes of the Ukrainian security forces, massive shelling of cities and towns of Donbass, resulting in civilian casualties.”
“It was noted that the West could help stop these atrocities by rendering an appropriate influence on the Kiev authorities, as well as by ceasing its supply of weapons to Ukraine,” the Kremlin said.
As Ukraine and Russia continue to accuse each other of war crimes, on April 30 Macron promised Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that France would “reinforce” both military and humanitarian aid to Kiev. Russia, meanwhile, has repeatedly warned Western countries against sending weapons, saying it would only prolong the conflict. Moscow has also made it clear that it would consider any foreign arms on Ukrainian territory as legitimate targets.
The Russian president emphasized that Moscow was still open to dialogue with Ukraine, despite what he called Kiev’s “inconsistency and unpreparedness for serious work.” Ukraine blames Moscow for the deadlock in the talks.
According to the Kremlin, Macron expressed concern over the issue of global food security. The French leader earlier named Russia’s attack on Ukraine as a main reason for a looming food crisis, but Putin claimed the situation had worsened “primarily due to the sanctions” imposed by Western countries on Moscow, and stressed “the importance of the unimpeded functioning of the global logistics and transport infrastructure.”
The Elysee has yet to provide its own readout of two leaders’ conversation.
Macron has been one of very few Western leaders who has continued direct dialogue with Putin since the launch of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine. At the same time, he has insisted on stepping up sanctions against Moscow, including tougher restrictions on Russian energy.
Russia attacked Ukraine in late February, following Kiev’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements, first signed in 2014, and Moscow’s eventual recognition of the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. The German- and French-brokered Minsk Protocol was designed to give the breakaway regions special status within the Ukrainian state.
The Kremlin has since demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join the US-led NATO military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked and has denied claims it was planning to retake the two republics by force.
France: The Ministry of the Interior has just published a decree authorizing the creation of a means of electronic identification called “Digital Identity Guarantee Service” (SGIN).https://t.co/uBx8Fz82m8pic.twitter.com/PqbaYBRk8Z
There’s no major difference between supporting terrorism on Syrian soil and sending troops there without formal approval from its government, Bashar Assad said as he lambasted France’s role in Syria’s civil war.
Syria has “come a long way” toward defeating much of the terrorist insurgency on its soil, but pockets of resistance still remain as jihadists are receiving support from Turkey and Western countries, Bashar Assad told Paris Match magazine, singling out the US, the UK and “especially France.”
France has joined the US-led anti-Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) coalition, providing air support and deploying special forces to Syria. But for Assad, the French intervention amounted to an “occupation,” as Paris – like its major NATO ally Washington – failed to secure Damascus’ authorization of the mission.
Do you frankly think that we can send Syrian forces to fight terrorism in France without being invited by the French government? International law governs the behavior of states in the world, not [their] intentions.
Now, when foreign forces came to Syria without being invited by the legitimate government, “it is [called] occupation,” the Syrian president insisted, adding, “there is not a big difference between supporting terrorism and deploying the military to occupy a country.”
Dubbed Operation Chammal, the French deployment was, officially, to carry out reconnaissance flights and aid Kurdish and Arab fighters in Syria. At peak times, France’s assets in the Middle East included a Charles de Gaulle carrier strike group, a fighter jet squadron as well as several marine units on the ground.
The interview came on the back of the Syrian army’s advances in the northern province of Idlib. The troops are now trying to fight their way toward the last militant-held towns along the strategic Damascus-Aleppo highway.
As the fighting continues, Assad said Syria can handle the war without any backing from the West. “We can manage our own business … But we want to come back to a world order that is no longer respected, because chaos reigns,” he concluded.
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone
Tales from the Conspiratum 