Even in the Ardennes. The Changing Face of France

This article appears at the website of l'Union, a local newspaper serving the northern departments of Champagne, Ardennes and Picardie. It describes the changing face of the city of Orgeval, north of Reims, in the rural Ardennes region:

In Orgeval, the French of North African origin and their businesses are now largely in the majority. The "classic" French increasingly feel ill at ease.

In Orgeval the ethnic French population no longer feels at home. "You mustn't see that as racism. That has nothing to do with it, but the North Africans have taken possession of the neighborhood, their laws and their culture rule, and we can do nothing except keep silent or move out. I've filed a request to change neighborhoods," explains a tenant of Charles-Roche.

"The young have no respect for us. I think that if I were North African, I would be treated better." Provided she wore the veil. "In Orgeval, a girl walking alone, without a veil, is called a bitch by the young persons. Girls do not have the right to go out with a boy, or only secretly. Fanaticism is never far away and favors intolerant behavior," according to a former employee of the community center. [...]

Abdelkader, a practicing Muslim and well-known neighborhood figure, refutes all ethnic separatism ["communitarisme"]: "Algerians, Moroccans, French, most people get along well and live well together. The problem is the young. With the young, things aren't going well."

A "white" woman from the Poincaré neighborhood, who is also waiting for new housing, says: "With the older generation, everyone gets along. Never a problem. That's proof that there is no racism on the part of the French. However, it does happen that we experience racism. The other day, on the staircase, a group of North African women were coming down. One of them addressed me. I didn't understand what she said and she called me a dirty French woman."

You mustn't talk back, or else "your car will be burned, your apartment burgled. They regard the neighborhood as theirs."

Even the police have nothing to say. "When the police come here, a hundred neighborhood young persons are immediately on the scene. One wonders where they come from... the police leave," affirm several residents. "They will never make an effort to integrate. It's too late, there's nothing to do but leave." (...)

In the stores, it is difficult to find pork, both in the butcher shops and the bakeries, where the paté turnovers ["en croûte"] are not to be found. "The merchants are nice to everybody, French or North African, but if they sold products for the French, they would risk losing the North Africans so they don't. That's the way it is," explains Mohamed Zaïda, president of the regional Algerian association, headquartered in Orgeval.

In a second part to the article, Mohamed Zaïda complains about the way all the ethnic communities were grouped together in one area, instead of being spread out throughout the city:

"We came in the 1960's, and they put us all here. Now people see us as a mountain. I favor mixing the populations."

He complains also about the fact that no one will hire these young persons, even though they are French born, and he points out that the North African population is growing:

"I am appealing to businesses to give them a chance, or else there will be trouble. Where are we heading? Our population is growing, there are already 12 or 13 million of us in France. For the moment these young persons don't vote, but when they do they'll vote for the first Algerian candidate who runs, and where will that lead, since they have grown up in hatred?"

He also says that girls have to put on a head scarf when they go out, not necessarily because they are religious, but to appease the fanaticism of the young persons. He insists he favors punishing all offenders and complains that the police let them go right away.
 
The article raises some questions that I cannot answer. These "young persons" are teens. If they were born in France then they are the children (possibly in some cases the grandchildren) of the original immigrants who came as a result of the end of the Algerian War, but especially as a result of the change in immigration laws in 1974 which opened the doors to women. That is when babies began to be born. So a girl born in France in 1975, turned 20 in 1995, began to have children who are today the teens causing trouble. But why is Zaïda surprised? Immigrants are usually grouped together, not necessarily because they are forced, but out of an inclination to be with one's own kind. He seems to feels it was forced.
 
But isn't the real problem not that they all live in one area, but that there was a change in mentality between the second and third generations? Why was this?
 
If these kids are full of hatred and commit mayhem, it is only normal that no one will hire them. He should not be surprised, but he should try to analyze the reasons why the change in attitude took place.
 
Finally he gives an indication of the number of North Africans in France. We always read that there are 5 million "immigrants", and we sense that this figure is derisory. The word "immigrant" technically does not apply to the "young persons" described above. They are 2nd and 3rd generation French. There are of course millions of immigrants waiting to receive their papers or waiting to become nationals. How many I have no idea. But is it safe to assume that the total number of North Africans, both French-born and non-nationals waiting to be legalized, plus the total number of sub-Saharan Africans, goes well beyond 15 million? Is that reasonable to assume?
 
If there are about 61 million Frenchmen in all (Wikipedia gives 61,875,822 as of 01/08), then the African element (North and South) would be approaching ONE THIRD of the population and could easily reach that point in 20 years or less.
 
This paragraph from Wikipedia is interesting. An uninformed person reading it would conclude that France has an immigrant population of 2 million who are nationals and 2.9 million who have not been nationalized, ignoring completely the many millions who were already there:

France is an ethnically diverse nation. According to the French National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies, it has an estimated 4.9 million foreign-born immigrants, of which 2 million have acquired French citizenship. France is the leading asylum destination in Western Europe with an estimated 50,000 applications in 2005 (a 15% decrease from 2004).

Here's another paragraph:

Estimates of the number of Muslims in France vary widely. According to the 1999 French census returns, there were only 3.7 million people of “possible Muslim faith” in France (6.3% of the total population). In 2003, the French Ministry of the Interior estimated the total number of Muslims as 5-6 millions. There are an estimated 200,000 to 1 million illegal immigrants in France.

The number of Muslims as 5-6 million is the official figure most often cited and conflicts with Mohamed Zaïda's figure of 12-13 million. However we must consider the possibility that most of the Maghrebins in France do not identify themselves as practicing Muslims.

french elites

"In what may some day be seen as the textbook case of liberal arrogance, the French opened their country to North Africa"

Was it a case of liberal arrogance? Immigration was/is made possible by both so-called right-wing and left-wing politicians.

"After all, they were dark, ignorant, hungry, poor, and Moslem. What harm could they do to the heirs of Charlemagne, Louis XIV, and Napoleon?"

The policy of importing people from North Africa shows contempt for Europeans rather than for North Africans.

"The French should require the North Africans to convert to Christianity and become French."

Maybe the French should require the North Africans to convert to buddhism and become Chinese. After all, the Chinese are polite and more hard-working than the French. And I think Black Africans living in france should be asked to become Japanese.

"At some point the French will wake up from the left-liberalism of their elites."

I think the "elites" are just going with the flow, and obeying whoever pays for their campaign and gives them a seat in parliament. They are also afraid of media attacks. But they do not really think they are doing people a favor by replacing them with immigrants.

French elites 2

Left-liberals (egalitarian universalists) and right-liberals (free-market universalists) both like to import population, though for different reasons. Patriotic conservatives, by contrast, would restrict immigration to what benefited their country. So I think it is fair to call it liberal arrogance that opened France to North Africa.

Agreed, there is contempt for the French on the part of those who import large numbers of foreigners, especially contempt for the people who will have to bear the immediate cost of cohabiting with incompatible aliens.

Your joke about requiring North Africans to become Chinese seems to imply that it is impossible for them to become Christian and French. Small enough numbers can be absorbed. I agree the current large numbers present an unlikely prospect. My purpose is to present the idea that a well-ordered France would be predominantly Christian, and that Islam and Christianity are incompatible. How France goes from where it is to where it should be is a matter for discussion.

The elites are not just going with the flow, but carving the course of the river. They could just as easily have restricted immigration to a greater degree and adopted the notion, "France for the French." But they didn't because they are arrogant liberals who think that they are invulnerable and omnipotent and that they can serve their political and economic interests by promoting mass immigration.

French elites 3

"Patriotic conservatives, by contrast, would restrict immigration to what benefited their country."

Limited immigration should be opposed for the same reasons as mass immigration.

"My purpose is to present the idea that a well-ordered France would be predominantly Christian, and that Islam and Christianity are incompatible."

I'm not concerned about Christianity. Europeans should be allowed to continue their existence whether they believe in God or not. And we do not need Christian immigrants any more than we need muslims. Incompatible immigration is the best kind of immigration, because it means European peoples won't disappear at once by miscegenation. In that sense, islam is a good thing. Anyway, I think the real incompatibility between Arabs/Africans and the rest of humanity is a racial incompatibility. Between India and Pakistan, the hostility may derive mainly from religion, but in Europe, it is a racial thing. Apart from the population replacement, which is obviously the worst aspect of immigration, what makes Arab and Black immigrants dangerous is not their religion but their violence.

I like the poster "Ni voilée, ni violée — Touche pas à ma soeur!".

The slogan means: No veil, no rape — Don't touch my sister!
It signals a refusal of the alternative given by Arab immigrants to Western women with the complicity of western governments.

Two weeks ago, in the city of Nice, Mr Vardon received a 5000€ fine and a 4 months suspended jail sentence for handing out that leaflet.

We are told that Arab immigrants rape western women out of islamic piety: in their minds, looking prettier than Arab women amounts to an offense against islam. I think that explanation is rubbish. The real reason why Arabs commit rapes has nothing to do with islam. Most black Americans are not muslims, and they behave in a similar way.

"The elites are not just going with the flow, but carving the course of the river."

I disagree. Our so-called leaders do not lead at all. Most politicians realize the immigration policy is a disaster, but they say what is required of them, and they hope the collapse of western society will not hurt them personally.

"because they are arrogant liberals"

Most french politicians are not arrogant liberals. I'm sure most of them would rather have no immigration at all.

"who think that they are invulnerable and omnipotent and that they can serve their political and economic interests by promoting mass immigration."

Keeping quiet about immigration will help french politicians keep their seat in parliament (even though most voters are against immigration) but it won't serve their economic interests in any other way.

1492

In what may some day be seen as the textbook case of liberal arrogance, the French opened their country to North Africa confident that there was no risk whatsoever that the North Africans would take it from them. After all, they were dark, ignorant, hungry, poor, and Moslem. What harm could they do to the heirs of Charlemagne, Louis XIV, and Napoleon?

The French should require the North Africans to convert to Christianity and become French. That is not impossible--the North Africans were Christians long before the Franks, and probably produced greater Christian saints (Cyprian and Augustine come immediately to mind). Those who do not convert should be asked to leave, as from Spain in 1492.

Of course, immigration has to stop. And the laicism of the Revolution has to be acknowledged as inadequate to the current crisis. (Tolerance is only meaningful among those who are sufficiently like each other to overlook a minor difference. Then it is a kind of treaty. Otherwise it is forced association.) At some point the French will wake up from the left-liberalism of their elites. The elites themselves are hopeless--they would rather die than give up their left-liberalism.