France: Emmanuel Macron, Useful Idiot of Islamism

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10310/emmanuel-macron-islamism

  • Emmanuel Macron, a “Useful Infidel,” is not a supporter of terrorism or Islamism. It is worse: he does not even see the threat.
  • Louizi’s article gave names and dates, explaining how Macron’s political movement has largely been infiltrated by Muslim Brotherhood militants.
  • Is Macron an open promoter of Islamism in France? It is more politically correct to say that he is a “globalist” and an “open promoter of multiculturalism”. As such, he does not consider Islamism a national threat because the French nation, or, as he has said, French culture, does not really exist.

During the cold war with the Soviet Union, they were called “Useful Idiots”. These people were not members of the Communist Party, but they worked for, spoke in favor of and supported the ideas of Lenin and Stalin. In the 21st century, Communism is finally dead but Islamism has grown and is replacing it as a global threat.

Like Communism, Islamism — or Islamic totalitarianism — has been collecting its “Useful Infidels” the same way Communism collected its Useful Idiots. There is, however, an important difference: under the Soviet Union, Useful Idiots were intellectuals. Now, Useful Infidels are politicians, and one of them may be elected president of France today.

Emmanuel Macron (Image source: European External Action Service)

Emmanuel Macron, Useful Infidel, is not a supporter of terrorism or Islamism. It is worse: he does not even see the threat. In the wake of the gruesome attacks of November 13, 2015 in Paris, Macron said that French society must assume a “share of responsibility” in the “soil in which jihadism thrives.”

“Someone, on the pretext that he has a beard or a name we could believe is Muslim, is four times less likely to have a job than another who is non-Muslim,” he added. Coming from the direction of Syria and armed with a Kalashnikov and a belt of explosives would, according to him, be a gesture of spite from the long-term unemployed?

Macron comes close to accusing the French of being racists and “Islamophobes”. “We have a share of responsibility,” he warned, “because this totalitarianism feeds on the mistrust that we have allowed to settle in society…. and if tomorrow we do not take care, it will divide them even more “.

Consequently, Macron said, French society “must change and be more open.” More open to what? To Islam, of course.

On April 20, 2017, after an Islamist terrorist killed one police officer and wounded two others in Paris, Macron said: “I am not going to invent an anti-terrorist program in one night”. After two years of continuous terrorist attacks on French territory, the presidential candidate said he had not taken the country’s security problems into account?

Moreover, on April 6, during the presidential campaign, professor Barbara Lefebvre, who has authored books on Islamism, revealed to the audience of the France2 television program L’Emission Politique, the presence on Macron’s campaign team of Mohamed Saou. It was Saou, apparently, a departmental manager of Macron’s political movement, “En Marche” (“Forward”), who promoted on Twitter the classic Islamist statement: “I am not Charlie”.

Sensing a potential scandal, Macron dismissed Saou, but on April 14, invited onto Beur FM, a Muslim French radio station, Macron was caught saying on a “hot mic” (believing himself off the air): “He [Saou] did a couple things a little bit radical. But anyway, Mohamed is a good guy, a very good guy”.

“Very good”, presumably, because Mohamed Saou was working to rally Muslim voters to Macron.

Is Saou an isolated case? Of course not. On April 28, Mohamed Louizi, author of the book Why I Quit Muslim Brotherhood, released a detailed article on Facebook that accused Macron of being a “hostage of the Islamist vote”. Republished by Dreuz, a Christian anti-Islamist website, Louizi’s article gave names and dates, explaining how Macron’s political movement has largely been infiltrated by Muslim Brotherhood militants. It will be interesting to see how many of them will be candidates in Macron’s movement in the next parliamentary elections.

On April 24, the Union of Islamic Organisations of France (UOIF), generally known as the French representative of Muslim Brotherhood, publicly called on Muslims to “vote against the xenophobic, anti-Semitic and racist ideas of the National Front and [we] call to massively vote for Mr. Macron.”

Why?

Is Macron an open promoter of Islamism in France? It is more politically correct to say that he is a “globalist” and an “open promoter of multiculturalism”. As such, he apparently does not consider Islamism a national threat because, for him, the French nation, or, as he has said, French culture, does not really exist. Macron has, in fact, denied that France is a country with a specific culture, a specific history, and a specific literature or art. On February 22, visiting the French expatriates in London, Macron said: “French culture does not exist, there is a culture in France and it is diverse”. In other words, on French territory, French culture and French traditions have no prominence or importance over imported migrant cultures. The same day, in London, he repeated the offense: “French art? I never met it!”

Conversely, in an interview with the anti-Islamist magazine, Causeur, he said: “France never was and never will be a multiculturalist country”.

Because he is a politician, Macron is not addressing the French people as a whole. He is addressing different political customer bases. When visiting Algeria, Macron said that colonization was a “crime against humanity”. He evidently hoped this remark would help him to collect the votes of French citizens of Algerian origin.

During the presidential campaign, Macron was always saying to people what they wanted to hear. French people may well be on their way to discovering that for Macron, belonging to a homeland, thinking of borders and defining oneself as belonging to a mother language or a specific literature or art, is nothing more than junk.

Yves Mamou is a journalist and author based in France. He worked for two decades for the daily, Le Monde, before his retirement.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “France: Emmanuel Macron, Useful Idiot of Islamism

  1. Yes, I was going to publish something similar. Worse in some ways. A long counter-attack against Macron’s opinion that “colonialism is a barbarity”. But it’s hard to point out that “colonialism” was a vector of civilization nowadays. Often, one gets stigmatized right away, with no debate. All is achieved is more shallow hatred, completely useless.

    If “colonialism” had not intervened, human sacrifices would rule all over, from the Americas, to India, the Pacific… Even the Celts had to quit human sacrifices under Roman “colonialism”.

    Macron is, fundamentally, a prostitute, or should I say a seductor, going here, there and everywhere, like Obama, establishing the love, and subjugating that way. It’s all about power groups. It should be about ideas.

    Macron made his first trip to Berlin. Merkel didn’t look amused by his message. Then Macron went to visit the French army fighting across more than six countries in the Sahel (and mentioned the German army which is playing a support role).

    We will see. Macron has to subjugate Germany to get serious things done:
    https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2017/05/14/macron-needs-to-declare-war-to-germany/

    Will he? It’s a tall order. I do believe Macron is sincere, at this point, though. Meanwhile Trump is in Saudi Arabia, and Rouhani was re-elected on the first turn in Iran (he was opposed by a Muslim fanatic of high order…)

    • Problem is that humans are idiots, which is why ideologies such as progressivism exist. Life is far simpler if everything is reduced to “good vs bad”, black and white with no nuances. And in modern West, self-hating has become fashionable. Hence the election of Macron. He is a symptom of suicide of the Western civilization, which has foregone its roots and forgotten its identity, deciding instead to drown in the multicultural swamp. To Macron, and to modern “liberals”, everything Western is bad, and everything non-Western is good. Nevermind that Islam explicitly allows paedophillia while at the same time homosexuals get thrown from the roofs. That is why progressivism and Islam are such good partners… both ideologies forgo reason in favour of emotions, and to reason with person who considers reason useless is impossible.

  2. Well, it’s clear that France should have voted some neo-fascist, not to say neo-nazi instead. (irony!).
    Now, let’s be clear, read the ancient testament and you may think Christianity sucks big league! Didn’t some prophets practised incest? Stoning was a common practise, etc…
    The Buddhist monks in Myanmar are not so nice and to be frank, had I lived in Tibet when the Chinese came, I wouldn’t have fought for theocracy to be kept!
    Most of our Muslims are NOT a problem. What sucks big league is “political Islam” which BTW goes AGAINST the French laicity. M.Brotherhood are even an extremist organisation with strong ties with Nazism even before WW2, they even traduced and published “Mein Kampf” in Arab (“forgetting” Adolf’s thoughts about Arabs. Anyway, anyone not blong with blue/green eyes would had ended testing how Zyklon B was efficient with him).
    Now, face reality : 78-80% of our French Maghrebines are irreligious, thus, our ‘Arabs’ are less bigot than “ethnic” French. Within these 20-22% being Allah-worshippers, we have about 0.5-1% sticking to M.Brotherhood extremist ideology.
    Now, we must highlight that MB tried to assassinate Nasser, assassinated Sadat and king Abdulah-1 of Jordan, that MB leader for Palestine was Arafat’s uncle Amin al-Husseini who ordered Abdullah-1 assassination but before, he was into Pogroms and launching ‘intifadas’ at the point Brits exiled him, then he moved to Berlin and became a Waffen SS general and actively backed but also participated the Shoah. He had infamous Otto Skorzeny to come to Egypt after WW2 to train his personal army into terrorism, army that was renamed PLO in 1964. Arafat entered MB in 1948 but played the secular guy to gain Soviet backing. OBL and al-Zawahiri began their careers into MB, Tunisian MB backs AQIM, Jordan one threatened Abdullah-II to team with Da’ish, Turkish AKP is a MB offshoot, so are al-Qaeda/Talebans/Shebabs/al-Mourabitoun/Nusra/Ansar-Dine while Da’ish is a Qaedan splt-off. Emir Tamim al-Thani is MB.
    MB is already a designated terrorist organisation in many countries incl. Russia and Egypt but even in Saudi-Arabia since 2014(!). Let’s face reality, they’re the political entity that preaches global jihad when they’re not directly implied doing recruitment and brainwashing.

    Now, let’s not generalise : we have +99% of our Muslims not being fanatics at all and they’re not at all supporting takfiris, terrorism, etc!
    There was just some laxism at under-estimating the MB problem and it’s clear that great care must be taken at not letting them infiltrate our institutions but also our mosques and well, let’s be clear, this Islamofascist group and all the offshoots it may create as covers simply shall be banned. Now, we also have Christian fanatics linked to 100% indigenous noe-nazi/neo-fascist groups or parties, they’re clearly as, if not more dangerous than takfiris especially as they’re less exotic and even thriving even more than MB at looking ‘mainstream’, nevertheless, the ideology is the same that triggered WW2 and they’re totally anti-constitutional too. It doesn’t makes Christians dangerous because some subgroups are linked.
    Thus, let’s not practise double standards : just go after both Islamofascists and ‘our’ neofascists without discrimination and at the same time, not go after innocent people who are Muslims because their parents and grand parents were before. We had our takfiris too, it was called ‘the Inquisition’ and they used to burn people at the stake.

    “Problem is that humans are idiots, which is why ideologies such as progressivism exist”
    ===>>> Problems is that humans are idiots, which is why ideologies as conservatism exist… Actually, it can apply to mostly any ideologies, BTW, conservatism is often called backwardism or retardism by progressivists. Actually, conservatives are willing to keep the worst from the past, progressivists are likely to chose the worst from the future. The only thing that should be considered shall be keep the best, leave the rest. If only our conservative were to re-open the ‘closed houses’, French moral would surely get out of ‘sinistrose’. Places like ‘Le Chabanais’, ‘Le One-Two-Two’ etc etc shall be back ASAP. Conservatism should be on the side of Baudelaire, Voltaire, Toulouse Lautrec, de Nerval, Balzac, Hugo, Dumas, Théophile Gautier, Delacroix… Strangely, all (but Voltaire and Lautrec) were in “Le Club des Haschischins”, nevertheless, Voltaire was a libertin while Lautrec lived in a brothel! It’s the total contrary of western conservative to be conservative in this way and the Muslim Brotherhood are also conservative, Mid-East style while the right way to be conservative should be being a fan of belly-dancers!

    • “Well, it’s clear that France should have voted some neo-fascist, not to say neo-nazi instead. (irony!).”

      Actually, France did vote in a neo-fascist… or as close to it as it gets. Marcon may be a so-called “liberal”, but he is in bed with globalists and with both national and global plutocracy, just like Hitler and Mussolini (and Churchill) were.

      “Now, let’s be clear, read the ancient testament and you may think Christianity sucks big league! Didn’t some prophets practised incest? Stoning was a common practise, etc…”

      That is true. But the basis of Christianity is the New Testament, which came about precisely because the Old Testament was screwed up. And the New Testament forbids incest and stoning, as well as many other practices that were common in the Old Testament. In other words, what you mention is of no relevance when discussing Christianity. For Christianity, Old Testatement has primarily historical, not practical, value, excepting the parts that are not covered (overruled) by the New Testament. So Judaism definetly sucks big league. Christianity… not so much, though admittedly it is far from perfect either.

      “Most of our Muslims are NOT a problem. What sucks big league is “political Islam” which BTW goes AGAINST the French laicity. M.Brotherhood are even an extremist organisation with strong ties with Nazism even before WW2, they even traduced and published “Mein Kampf” in Arab (“forgetting” Adolf’s thoughts about Arabs. Anyway, anyone not blong with blue/green eyes would had ended testing how Zyklon B was efficient with him).”

      Islam, by its nature, is political. So problem is Islam itself. Wether Muslims are a problem or not, that depends on their views, behaviour etc., but to make it clear, one does not need to be violent to be a problem. And you are forgetting how Hitler gave “honorary Aryanism” to Japanese, and had many meetings with the Grand Mufti… he even expressed some measure of respect for Islam (and not just in words – see the 13th Waffen SS “Handzar” division). In fact, Nazis had many differing views, but Hitler himself considered “master race” in terms of ability and not ethnicity, or even racialism.

      “Now, face reality : 78-80% of our French Maghrebines are irreligious, thus, our ‘Arabs’ are less bigot than “ethnic” French. Within these 20-22% being Allah-worshippers, we have about 0.5-1% sticking to M.Brotherhood extremist ideology.”

      Problem is that they, particularly younger people, are relatively easily radicalized. And Islam is primarily a political system, meaning that one does not necessarily have to be religious to try and force Islam. Nor does it have to be violent. Nazis did not come into power through violence either, neither did modern liberals.

      “Now, let’s not generalise : we have +99% of our Muslims not being fanatics at all and they’re not at all supporting takfiris, terrorism, etc!”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Polls
      35% Muslims in France, 24% Muslims in Britain, 13% in Germany, 25% in Spain believe that terrorism can be justified in defense of Islam

      That is far cry from 1%. And you do not need to be violent to be a danger to society.

      Just to make it clear, question here is terrorism “in defense of Islam”. Attacks in defense of a country – that is to say, against an actual occupation force – are something completely different, and not what the poll was about.

      https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7861/british-muslims-survey
      Only 34% British Muslims would contact the police if they suspected somebody they knew was involved in terrorism. 23% of British Muslims want Sharia to replace British law, 31% want polygamy to be legalized, 33% refuse to condemn stonings.
      In other words, 76% of British Muslims are a danger to country through inaction, 23% are a political danger.

      You might want to read this as well:
      https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx

      “There was just some laxism at under-estimating the MB problem and it’s clear that great care must be taken at not letting them infiltrate our institutions but also our mosques and well, let’s be clear, this Islamofascist group and all the offshoots it may create as covers simply shall be banned. Now, we also have Christian fanatics linked to 100% indigenous noe-nazi/neo-fascist groups or parties, they’re clearly as, if not more dangerous than takfiris especially as they’re less exotic and even thriving even more than MB at looking ‘mainstream’, nevertheless, the ideology is the same that triggered WW2 and they’re totally anti-constitutional too. It doesn’t makes Christians dangerous because some subgroups are linked.”

      How many people have Christian fanatics killed? What rules, laws and mores do Christian fanatics want the society to adopt, and what Muslim fanatics want? How do you define Christian fanatics?

      You cannot just say “Christian fanatics” and act as if they are the same as Muslim fanatics, because Christianity and Islam are not the same. There are far less Christian fanatics than Muslim ones, and they are on the whole less dangerous. This is not to say that they are harmless, but there definetly is difference between Islam and Christianity in that regard. Largely because Christianity has accepted supremacy of the state – “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” – whereas Islam has no concept of separation between the religion and the state, let alone supremacy of the secular state over religion.

      In fact, it is precisely (though not only) due to its rejection of secularism that Islam is incompatible with the Western democracy, and that any attempt at multiculturalism will fail. From the horse’s mouth:
      http://www.islamawareness.net/Secularism/ivs.html
      http://www.islamic.org.uk/i4wm/islamand.htm
      https://islamqa.info/en/121550

      As for neonazi groups, many of them are just a reaction to failed policies of multiculturalism. Isolation is ideal for peace, if there is no contact there can be no conflict.

      “Problems is that humans are idiots, which is why ideologies as conservatism exist… Actually, it can apply to mostly any ideologies, BTW, conservatism is often called backwardism or retardism by progressivists. Actually, conservatives are willing to keep the worst from the past, progressivists are likely to chose the worst from the future. The only thing that should be considered shall be keep the best, leave the rest. If only our conservative were to re-open the ‘closed houses’, French moral would surely get out of ‘sinistrose’. Places like ‘Le Chabanais’, ‘Le One-Two-Two’ etc etc shall be back ASAP. Conservatism should be on the side of Baudelaire, Voltaire, Toulouse Lautrec, de Nerval, Balzac, Hugo, Dumas, Théophile Gautier, Delacroix… Strangely, all (but Voltaire and Lautrec) were in “Le Club des Haschischins”, nevertheless, Voltaire was a libertin while Lautrec lived in a brothel! It’s the total contrary of western conservative to be conservative in this way and the Muslim Brotherhood are also conservative, Mid-East style while the right way to be conservative should be being a fan of belly-dancers!”

      Theory, though maybe not the practice, of conservativism holds that things which survive are things that work in a certain set of conditions, and thus that historical experience is the best teacher. This theory of course has its limits, but is far superior to progressive logic of “newer = better”. Of course, in practice… as you said, “conservatives are willing to keep the worst from the past, progressivists are likely to chose the worst from the future”. But multiculturalism doesn’t work precisely because cultures have adapted to different conditions… forcing different cultures together is foolishness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s