ON JULY 2, RIPOSTE LA"iQUE POSTED EXCERPTS FROM A RECENT ARTICLE BY CHARLES DALGER IN WHICH HE DENOUNCES THE ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE RABBIS OF FRANCE AND THE MUSLIMS IN THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE LAW BANNING CIRCUMCISION THAT IS THEORETICALLY IN EFFECT IN FRANCE. THIS WAS POSSIBLY A REACTION TO THE GERMAN COURT IN COLOGNE THAT RULED CIRCUMCISION AN ACT OF CRUELTY TOWARDS INNOCENT CHILDREN:
AN ARTICLE IN RIPOSTE LA"iQUE REMINDED ME OF THE INDIGNATION OF A FEMALE TRAVELER IN ISRAEL IN 2002. THE WAVE OF NAZI-ISLAMIST VIOLENCE WAS THEN AT ITS HEIGHT. EVERY DAY ISRAELIS WERE VICTIMS OF ATTACKS, AND EVERY DAY, IN LIEU OF REPRISALS, THE ISRAELI LEADERS LIMITED THEMSELVES TO FIGHTING WORDS. THIS JEWISH FRENCHWOMAN WAS REVOLTED BY THE USE OF ARABIC ON ALL SORTS OF TRAFFIC SIGNS. SHE COULD NOT TOLERATE THE LANGUAGE OF OUR ENEMY REMAINING ONE OF THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES OF ISRAEL, SIDE BY SIDE WITH HEBREW.
(...)
IN ITS FIGHT AGAINST THE MUSLIM INVASION, EUROPEAN RESISTANCE GAVE GRIST TO THE ISLAMIC MILL. IN FRANCE, AFTER DENOUNCING RITUAL SLAUGHTER, OUR FRIENDS AT RIPOSTE LA"iQUE POINT OUT THAT CIRCUMCISION IS ALREADY FORBIDDEN BY LAW IN FRANCE. ONCE AGAIN THE FRENCH RABBINATE REACTED WITH THE WRONG ARGUMENT, UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH ALLIES FROM ENEMIES. UNITED IN A COMMON CAUSE WITH OUR MUSLIM ENEMIES, THE RABBINATE STIGMATIZES A SO-CALLED "RACIST EXTREME RIGHT". THE RABBIS ARE WRONG! FRANCE IS NOT A JEWISH COUNTRY. JEWISH CIRCUMCISION IS TACITLY TOLERATED, BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF THE VERY ANCIENT CUSTOMS OF THE COUNTRY. THIS IS THE ONLY ARGUMENT THAT SHOULD BE DEFENDED. COMPARED TO THE JEWISH POPULATION, THE MUSLIM POPULATION IS VERY RECENT. MUSLIMS BORN IN FRANCE ARE ONLY THE THIRD GENERATION AND THIS GENERATION IS STILL YOUNG. BESIDES THE FACT THAT JEWS HAVE NEVER TRIED TO OBTAIN INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CIRCUMCISION, AS THE MUSLIMS ARE ABOUT TO DO, THE NUMBER OF JEWS IN FRANCE IS CONSTANTLY DIMINISHING. THEY WILL SOON BE FEWER THAN FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND, WHILE THE MUSLIM POPULATION MAY GO BEYOND TWENTY MILLION IN LESS THAN TEN YEARS. ANY SANE PERSON WOULD REALIZE THAT WHAT CAN BE TOLERATED FOR A FEW CANNOT BE TOLERATED FOR THE MANY.
OUTSIDE OF ISRAEL, THE JEWS MUST REFUSE ALL SPECIFIC LEGISLATION, EVEN IF IT IS FAVORABLE. IN FRANCE, DISCREET ACCOMMODATIONS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS ALLOW JEWS TO RESPECT THEIR RELIGIOUS OBLIGATIONS IF THEY SO DESIRE. EVEN IF THEY MUST AT TIMES MAKE WRENCHING CHOICES.
NOTE: IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH HE IS IMPLYING HIS DISAPPROVAL OF THE GAYSSOT LAW THAT MADE HOLOCAUST DENIAL A CRIME. THIS LAW, WHILE APPARENTLY FAVORABLE TO JEWS, IN FACT OPENED THE DOOR TO A FURTHER REPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH.
WITH THE MUSLIM INVASION, THE SITUATION IS RADICALLY DIFFERENT. IT IS NO LONGER A QUESTION OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INDIVIDUALS, BUT OF SEVERAL MILLION. RELIGIOUS DEMANDS NOW GO FAR BEYOND PIETY. ABOVE ALL, MUSLIMS ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE MUSLIM LAW IN THE COUNTRIES THEY INVADE. IT IS ALMOST A FAIT ACCOMPLI IN COUNTRIES WHERE, BY TRADITION, GROUP RIGHTS ARE ACCEPTED, FOR EXAMPLE, THE UNITED KINGDOM, BELGIUM, ETC... TODAY WE CAN ASSESS THE SCOPE OF THE CATASTROPHE. EVEN THOUGH THE BIG EUROPEAN COMMISSION MIGHT IMPOSE IT, GROUP RIGHTS DO NOT YET EXIST IN FRANCE. BY ASSOCIATING THEMSELVES WITH THE MUSLIMS, THOSE WHO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE JEWS IN FRANCE ARE NOT DOING THEM A FAVOR.
SO TO SUMMARIZE, UNTIL THE MASSIVE PRESENCE OF MUSLIMS, JEWS WERE GRANTED SPECIAL PRIVILEGES DISCREETLY, EVEN IF IT WAS CONTRARY TO THE LAW - FOR EXAMPLE THE LAW THAT BANS CIRCUMCISION. IF JEWS (AND BY EXTENSION ANY ETHNIC GROUP) START OPENLY DEMANDING GROUP RIGHTS, AND FORM AN ALLIANCE WITH OTHER ETHNIC GROUPS (SUCH AS THE MUSLIMS), THEY WILL IN FACT DESTROY THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGES THEY DISCREETLY ENJOYED IN THE PAST AND THEY MAY EVEN DEMAND THE REPEAL OF LAWS THAT ARE NOT FAVORABLE TO THEM. FOR CHARLES DALGER, THIS IS NOT WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS. THEY ARE IN FRANCE AND HAVE TO ADAPT TO A SITUATION THAT MAY BE LESS THAN IDEAL. THE SAME SHOULD BE TRUE OF THE MUSLIMS, BUT THE FRENCH HAVE GRANTED MUSLIMS SO MANY RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES THAT A DE FACTO SITUATION OF GROUP RIGHTS NOW EXISTS.
CHARLES DALGER CONCLUDES HIS ARTICLE WITH A PERCEPTIVE LOOK AT CERTAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE WEST:
DESPITE SIMILARITIES, THERE IS NONETHELESS A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WESTERN COUNTRIES UNDERGOING A MUSLIM INVASION AND ISRAEL THAT APPEARS SO LAX TOWARDS ITS MUSLIM OCCUPIERS. IN THEIR MAJORITY, THE INHABITANTS OF ISRAEL ARE QUITE CONSCIOUS OF THE NATURE OF THE MUSLIM ENEMY.
SO LONG AS THIS ENEMY POSES ONLY A LIMITED IMMEDIATE THREAT, THE REACTION IS WEAK. BUT IF THE DANGER SHOWS SIGNS OF GROWING, THIS POPULATION HAS THE SERENE CERTITUDE, AND ABOVE ALL THE WILL, TO ANNIHILATE THE DANGER, WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST DIFFICULTY.
THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING. SUCH A WILL IS TOTALLY ABSENT FROM THE WESTERN POLITICAL WORLD.
HE MAKES AN EXCELLENT POINT. ISRAEL, WHEN PUSHED AGAINST THE WALL, WILL FIGHT BACK. WE WON'T.
FINAL NOTE: I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE FRENCH LAW BANNING CIRCUMCISION AND DIDN'T REALIZE IT EXISTED. IF IT DOES EXIST, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN WITH REGARD TO THE MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS WHO HAVE CHILDREN AND PRACTICE THE RITUAL? ARE THEY VIOLATING A LAW? WILL ANY PUNISHMENT BE METED OUT? HARDLY LIKELY. IF FRANCE HAS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN A LAW THAT IS NOT OBEYED AND A REPEAL OF THE LAW, WHICH SOLUTION IS BETTER? IS THERE A SOLUTION TO ANYTHING SO LONG AS MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS LIVE ON FRENCH SOIL AND CONTINUE TO GROW AND MAKE DEMANDS?
