“I didn’t fight against French Algeria to accept an Algerian France”: Bardot slams modern-day France | RT World News

'I didn’t fight against French Algeria to accept an Algerian France': Bardot slams modern-day France

“I did not fight against French Algeria to accept an Algerian France. I do not touch the culture, the identity and the customs of others; let’s not touch mine.” – Brigitte Bardot

Source: ‘I didn’t fight against French Algeria to accept an Algerian France’: Bardot slams modern-day France — RT World News

Brigitte Bardot – a noted actress and famous beauty who starred in 47 films (most of them in the 1950s and 60s) – was an outspoken critic of the French colonial presence in Algiers, which gained its independence from France after a vicious 8-year war (1954-1962). But, as she pointed out in an interview with the French weekly Valeurs Actuelles,

France is not what it once was. “I have been brought up in honor, patriotism, love and respect for my country, and when I see what it has become, I feel desperate,” she said.

The 83-year-old also said that it is “unacceptable” to see burqas become commonplace in France, and Islamists are “practically everywhere.”

This article also notes that

The former actress didn’t mince her words when it came to her thoughts on the European Union either. “We have to get out of it,” she said. Bardot added that she is a supporter of right-wing National Front politician Marine Le Pen, who has also spoken out against France’s membership in the EU.

With so many Left-wing actors and other entertainers espousing cultural Marxism on this side of the Atlantic (and probably in Europe, too), it’s actually rather refreshing to hear such an icon of the silver screen speaking out in favor of protecting the culture, history, and heritage of her home country!

Advertisements

What Do Europeans Think About Muslim Immigration? | Chatham House

New research points to significant and widespread levels of public anxiety over immigration from mainly Muslim states.

The Chatham House article is most interesting: it appears that, once again (as is very often – not always, but very often – the case), the ordinary people of Europe have more sense than their alleged “leaders.” To wit:

Drawing on a unique, new Chatham House survey of more than 10,000 people from 10 European states, we can throw new light on what people think about migration from mainly Muslim countries. Our results are striking and sobering. They suggest that public opposition to any further migration from predominantly Muslim states is by no means confined to Trump’s electorate in the US but is fairly widespread.

In our survey… respondents were given the following statement: ‘All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped’. They were then asked to what extent did they agree or disagree with this statement. Overall, across all 10 of the European countries an average of 55% agreed that all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed and 20% disagreed.

Majorities in all but two of the ten states agreed, ranging from 71% in Poland, 65% in Austria, 53% in Germany and 51% in Italy to 47% in the United Kingdom and 41% in Spain. In no country did the percentage that disagreed surpass 32%.

In case that wasn’t clear enough, let me restate: in none of the ten European countries surveyed (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain and the UK) did more than a third disagree with the statement that “All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped.” The others were either in favor of stopping Islamic immigration, or neutral on the idea.

There is the obligatory observation that there is

“a clear education divide. Of those with secondary level qualifications, 59% opposed further Muslim immigration. By contrast, less than half of all degree holders supported further migration curbs.”

The question that this does not ask, still less answer, however, is whether this supposedly greater support for immigration among those with academic degrees is a function of being “better educated,” per se, or being more thoroughly indoctrinated by the left-leaning academic establishment. I suspect the latter!

This article is a year old, of course; I am only just now seeing it. But somehow, I doubt that attitudes have changed much. If anything, they may have hardened.

Granted that I am basing this observation primarily off of Facebook and YouTube, which tend to point to the more extreme ends of the spectrum: but there is, it seems to me, a simmering frustration on the part of many Europeans over the social-engineering projects of those who seem to consider themselves their “betters.”

The European political establishment seems to be feeling it, too, as they appear to be doubling down on their use of legal enforcement to suppress nationalistic and anti-immigrant sentiments. The problem, of course, is that when you put a lid on a simmering pot, the pressure builds, and you need to add more and more weight to keep the lid on. When it finally blows, it can be quite messy…

Marion Le Pen at CPAC – Controversy and Common Sense

Image may contain: 1 person, text

“We do not want this atomized world of individuals without gender, without mother, without father, without nation.”

Source: Marion Le Pen at CPAC | Defend Europa

“To open up to the outside, you must have a solid core. To welcome, you have to remain. To share, you must have something to offer.”

Marion Maréchal-Le Pen is a controversial figure, and having her speak at CPAC was a controversial decision, because the party she represents, France’s Front National (highlights of whose current program are found here), is controversial: in part because of some unfortunate statements regarding the Holocaust by its founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen (Marion Le Pen’s grandfather) – who has since been expelled – and in part because under the currently-dominant metric here in the U.S. (and in much of the West), anyone who is not hard-Left is therefore “far-right.”

Be that as it may, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen’s remarks should not be controversial to anyone who cares about his or her own country or its people, who is suspicious of the globalist agenda, and who believes that, basically, charity begins at home. Speaking of her home country of France, she asserts,

“France is no longer free today! The French are not free to choose their policies, whether they are economic, monetary, on immigration or even diplomacy. Our freedom is now in the hands of the European Union. This European Union is not Europe. It is an ideology that looks only to the future while being contaminated with historic amnesia. An ideology without land, without people, without roots, without soul, and without civilization. EU is in the process of slowly killing millenary nations.”

In other words, as the linked article points out, the EU “is not Europe, it’s an authoritarian system that is slowly destroying the nation states and the various European Identities.”

The idea of capital-“I” Identities, or as it’s sometimes called, “Identitarianism,” is another concept that is under fire by the mainstream/Left, but that outrage possesses a level of irony that would be amusing if it were not so maddening: it is perfectly all right to “identify” as a “person of color,” as somewhere on the “LGBT-etc.” spectrum, even as a “gender” different than the biological sex with which one was born – but as soon as you start identifying as a European (especially if you dare to use the “W” word), you are anathema: racist, fascist, xenophobic, Nazi. As I say, it would be amusing if it were not so aggravating!

Personally, I do identify as European (or, technically, an American of European descent) – and within that, primarily as English, Scots, and German – the same way I do as a man: not as a political statement, but as a simple and incontrovertible fact, an expression of biological (and in the case of my European identity, cultural and historical) reality. It is the actions and reactions of people on the Left that are gradually forcing me to view this identity in more socio-political terms: my heritage, both genetic and cultural, is under attack, and that unfortunate fact forces me to defend it.

This reality does not fill me with glee! Quite the contrary, in fact. I am not any sort of a supremacist, nor am I a colonialist, nor (much as I respect and appreciate, say, the Roman and British Empires) an imperialist. Like a lot of folks, I mainly want to be left alone. But I also want my people to be left alone, and not to be subsumed, oppressed, overrun, interbred, or replaced. So I suppose that makes me an Identitarian… and if so, so be it. I did not choose the label, or the fight; both were forced upon me. But just as in my school days – when I did not start fights, but often finished them – I’m not going to back down, either!

At any rate, that personal statement aside, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen has other good things to say, as the linked article recounts:

Marion also had thoughts about the state of modern society and the importance of things like family and values. She stated: “Without nation and without family, the limit of the common good, natural law and collective morality disappears as the reign of egoism continues.”

“Egoism” referring to the current incarnation of the “me generation,” in which what “I” want, be it sexual license, freedom from unwanted pregnancies (even if it means killing the unborn), from the commitment to marriage, etc., etc. – the list could go on – is more important than what is good for families, society as a whole, children, and future generations. The article goes on to note,

The current reign of egoism is the manifestation of modernism, a shallow ideology which forces individualism and the atomization of society on the younger generations, the biggest victims of modern society.

Indeed. As I suggested above, these are the sorts of thoughts and positions which should not be controversial in any sane society; the fact that they are indeed controversial in our current one says things that are less-than-flattering about it! I am reminded of the meme I posted, I think, some while ago:

Kids are more depressed these days

As I have commented previously, smartphones are part of it. But they are more a symptom than the disease: a symptom of an alienated and alienating society, disconnected from its geographical, cultural, and historical roots, as well as from an organic, holistic, integral community of which one can feel truly and fully a part.

In such a context, it is perhaps not surprising that so many people – and not just young people – would retreat into technology, seeking solace in that electronic drug: or perhaps one might say, that false and idolatrous religion, if it is seen as the primary source of meaning and “salvation” in one’s life.

But the fact that younger people, such as Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, are beginning to awaken to the sad and degraded state of our present society – and are starting to push back – is very encouraging, to me. God grant the pendulum is beginning to swing in a saner and more wholesome direction!

See also: Marion Marechal-Le Pen’s surprising conservative message

Video of her speech at CPAC:

Christianity: The Last Hope for Europe | The Imaginative Conservative

https://i2.wp.com/www.theimaginativeconservative.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Orban-768x490.jpg

If everything continues in this way, then the cities of Europe will clearly have majority Muslim populations, our identity and our nations as we know them will cease to exist, our worst nightmares will have become reality. The West will fall…

Source: Christianity: The Last Hope for Europe – The Imaginative Conservative

Hungarian Prime Minister issues a warning… and also expresses some hope:

“Commentators claim that there are dark clouds gathering over Europe, due to immigration. There have always been dark prophecies. This is the familiar background music to European politics. What’s worrying these days is that in essence they are mathematical in nature: even though they are estimates, they are about numbers and quantifiable changes; and numbers always carry a great deal of weight…

“For instance, in Bavaria now more money is being spent on asylum, immigration and integration than on the combined state budget for the economy, the environment and health care. Visiting Vienna I heard that this year’s school enrolment data took everyone very much by surprise: the percentage of Muslim children among those starting school has soared. This is the future that over there is already the present. According to NATO reports – it seems that soldiers don’t yet allow themselves to be censored – by 2020, sixty million people will have set off for Europe. There’s also consensus that Africa will be more powerful than any previous expectations had envisaged. By 2050 its population will have doubled, to 2.5 billion. There will be ten times more young Africans than young Europeans… If this mass of several hundred million young people is allowed to travel north, then Europe will soon come under horrendous pressure.

“Furthermore, the majority of immigrants will arrive from the Islamic world. If everything continues in this way, then the cities of Europe will clearly have majority Muslim populations – and London will not be an outlier, but a pioneer. If things continue like this, our culture, our identity and our nations as we know them will cease to exist. Our worst nightmares will have become reality. The West will fall, as Europe is occupied without realising it. Will this be a vindication of the views of those who think that civilisations are not killed, but commit suicide? Many believe that even if all this does take place, it will all take a long time. I think that those who believe this are mistaken. Analyses look ahead as far as 2050, and people of my age will reach their eighties at around that time. In other words, we – not to mention our children and grandchildren – may be able to see with our own eyes what direction the future of our Western world has taken.”

Anyone of European heritage who does not see this as worrisome either has their head in the sand and is practicing an advanced form of denial, or is culturally masochistic, if not suicidal. But the problem is not just from external forces; it is from internal (to Europe) forces, as well – or even more critically:

“I must also say a few words about the dispute between Western and Central Europe. It seems that the courses of development of these two parts of Europe have diverged… The great old European nations in Western Europe have become immigrant countries. Day by day their cultural foundations are being transformed, the population raised in a Christian culture is declining, and the major cities are undergoing Islamisation. And I have to say that I cannot see the political forces with the will and ability to stop these processes – let alone, horribile dictu, reverse them. In terms of my message it is now irrelevant whether this is the consequence of the weakness of liberal democracies, the repercussions of an earlier colonial and slave-trading past, or the greedy, subversive actions of a George Soros-style empire; the facts remain. Whatever the reason, Western Europe has become an immigrant zone and a world of mixed populations; and, unlike central Europe, it is heading in the direction of a completely new development future. This is bad news for us. This means that Islamic civilisation – which has always seen its mission as the conversion of Europe to what it calls the true faith – will knock on Central Europe’s door not only from the South, but also from the West.

However absurd it seems, the situation is that now the danger is threatening us from the West. This danger to us comes from politicians in Brussels, Berlin and Paris. They want us to adopt their policies: the policies that made them immigrant countries and that opened the way for the decline of Christian culture and the expansion of Islam. They want us to also accept migrants and to also become countries with mixed populations. Earlier they said that they expect this from us because what is alien is beautiful, a mixed population is better, and because the true European does not defend such obsolete mediaeval concepts as homeland and religion. Today these voices are perhaps quieter. Now the fashionable mantra is that we must become like them because this expresses solidarity. We must clearly state that we stand in solidarity with those Western Europeans and leaders who want to save their homelands and Christian culture, and we have no solidarity with those who want to abandon those things. We shall never express solidarity with those European leaders who want to take Europe into a post-Christian and post-national era.

But the news is not all bad. There is hope:

“We must clearly and forthrightly state that we do not see the battle that we’re fighting as a hopeless one; in fact as we see it, we now stand on the brink of victory. The countries of the Visegrád Four are unwavering. The Orthodox world stands firm, and it seems that Croatia has come to its senses. Austria has now turned in the direction of patriotism and Christianity. In Bavaria a spiritual and political resistance has developed under the leadership of the CSU. Perhaps it is not too late. And we await, we keenly anticipate, the result of the Italian election, and with it the turning-point which will see the return to government of common sense, Italian national and cultural identity – and Silvio Berlusconi. Forza Italia!”

Thank God for the Visegrád nations! And others are beginning to join them. Perhaps it is not yet too late. I am awaiting anxiously the results of the Italian elections…

Russian Orthodox Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev – Aleteia

Participating in a London conference on the topic of “The Christian Future of Europe,” Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, head of the External Relations Departments of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate, spoke on September 22 at the Russian Embassy to Great Britain, and his talk was something of a warning to the Churches of the West.

Source: Russian Orthodox Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev – Aleteia

Excerpts from Metropolitan Hilarion’s speech:

“I would like to remind you all that in Russia before 1917 nobody ever proposed that the collapse of a centuries-old Christian empire would happen and that it would be replaced by an atheistic totalitarian regime. And even when that did happen, few believed that it was serious and for long.

“The modern-day decline of Christianity in the western world may be compared to the situation in the Russian Empire before 1917.

“The revolution and the dramatic events which followed it have deep spiritual, as well as social and political, reasons. Over many years the aristocracy and intelligentsia had abandoned the faith, and were then followed by common people.”

He also added,

“And when half a century after the creation of the European Union its constitution was being written, it would have been natural for the Christian Churches to expect that the role of Christianity as one of the European values to have been included in this document, without encroaching upon the secular nature of the authorities in a unified Europe.

“But, as we know, this did not happen.

“The European Union, when writing its constitution, declined to mention its Christian heritage even in the preamble of the document.

“I firmly believe that a Europe which has renounced Christ will not be able to preserve its cultural and spiritual identity.”

I fear he is correct.

End of the EU? Wave of populism takes over bloc despite Merkel’s Brexit relief | World | News | Express.co.uk

European Union bosses breathed a sigh of relief when Marine Le Pen was defeated by Emmanuel Macron in France – but new studies have revealed the spread of populism is FAR from over.

Source: End of the EU? Wave of opulism takes over bloc despite Merkel’s Brexit relief | World | News | Express.co.uk

Angela Merkel revealed just last month she was rocked by Brexit, and feared for the future of the EU, but the result of the French presidential election gave her new hope.

However, that hope may be dashed after the findings of Epicenter (the European Policy Information Centre).

Populism is being described as the ‘third force’ in Europe – with right-wing parties gaining renewed support across the bloc.

The Epicenter report revealed the total number of European voters who bucked the Brussels rhetoric and chose an anti-system force at the last political elections was 21.4 percent.

This means 55.8 million people preferred an alternative to traditional political forces – or those preferred by the EU.

Read on for more. More and more people in Europe appear to be waking up to the existential threat posed to European countries’ history, heritage, culture, and way of life by the “soft” invasion unleashed by Merkel and her fellow-travelers (helped along, sadly, by American stupidity in taking down governments – such as Libya, and we’re working on Syria, too – that helped to hold back the tide). But will it be enough, and will it be soon enough, to prevent irreparable harm? That is the question…

Migrant crisis – EU’s top court rules in favour of Dublin Agreement | Politics | News | Express.co.uk

EUROPE’S top court this morning threw a spanner in the works of Brussels attempts to resolve the migrant crisis by ruling that member states have the power to deport asylum seekers back to the first EU country they entered.

Source: Migrant crisis – EU’s top court rules in favour of Dublin Agreement | Politics | News | Express.co.uk

In an eagerly awaited ruling judges at the ECJ confirmed that Austria and Slovenia can send migrants back to Croatia to have their asylum cases determined there instead. 

I am sorry for Croatia, which I’m sure is feeling overwhelmed – ditto Italy and Greece – but this is a victory for both national sovereignty and for the preservation of Europe’s cultural and historical integrity, as well as for Austria.

My question is, why are “hundreds of thousands” of migrants being allowed into Europe at all? They have to come from somewhere – that is, have ingress points – and they have to be let in by someone. If you don’t let them in, in the first place, you don’t have to decide their status! And if it’s “the law” that you have to let them in, then “the law” needs to be changed.

I am opposed in principle to this absurd and very recent notion that any nation is under obligation to accept anyone, regardless of circumstances, within their borders. If they choose to do so, on humanitarian grounds, that’s their choice; but trying to legally require it? Ridiculous, and dangerous.