Emigration is a weapon used by national capitalist forces to force another national capital to immigrate that excess of unemployed. It is a way of shoving a financial burden elsewhere. It is a national act of undeclared war. In this case it is globalists warring against all nation-states to make way fro the new form of rule: the regional union. The EU plan is being deployed everywhere and in all cases there will be five who rules the region, all reporting to David Rockefeller and/or his successor. First off, why is Islam being treated as a "race". It is not a race. Is "Christian" a race? No, Is "Judaism" a race? No. They're the practice of a worldview. Both the French nation-state and Islam are enemies. An immigrant is not necessarily an Islamic person, so this is not even an immigration issue. It is an issue of encirclement by Islam from within. If you've ever played the Japanese game, "Go", you know what I'm talking about. "Invasion" of one worldview of the real estate predominantly held by other worldviews has been going on way before England, the USA, and France existed, so this is not a national question either. It is one of intolerance. The toleration of an intolerant-of-any-worldviews-besides its own is exactly the issue. Islam sucks, plain and simple. It always has. Its very tenets are based around rigid hierarchy, sexual slavery, and the subjugation of disbelievers. So, under today's conditions where people are herded into nation-states, ruled by capital extraction social relations, and in the toleration of the capital extractions that are built into national/international law, just how does one resist globalist strategy? The reason the Islamic terror is being funded is because that allows the restructuring of the nation-state and the hierarchy to be done FOR global bankers who use global Islam in the tough cop / soft cop con.

The French example ought to be assessed as an opportunity to answer that question. We have the reification fanatics all around us: the nation, the capital, the deities. If we foolishly (like the left embracing of Stalinist or Chavezist state capitalism) see the enemy of our enemy as our friend, then prepare for losing AGAIN and maybe forever. We must devise theory that sees ALL reification as enemy, and with intelligence unseen in national liberation, third worldism, fragmented group agendaism, left-or-rightism (where the left smooths over the flaws of capital without altering it at the point-of-alienation, and the right defends whatever freedoms remain that came from the bourgeois revolution). Both contain a small kernel of truth and miss the total point of revolution. It changes everything from within and all the time. It is a continuous self-unfolding that digests itself to give birth to a newer and more robust self. Hell, even capitalism does that, using the left as recuperator-digester, however, they resolutely and Rockefeller-fundedly do not challenge the core reification: capital. It courses through every idiotological critique they ooze. They protect that core reification. So, in France, their critiques always divert from a total critique down to a race, national, immigration, or whatever issue. They suck and always have. Peas in a pod that breed alienation, like the pods in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".

best,
chris

Andrew oommen wrote:

first let me start off by saying that i am new to this mailing list, etc. and enjoy the frequent articles and links to useful literature. But i think that this post is a bit offensive and doesn't actually address the issue of 'immigration.' as i see it, Mr. Gray's analysis is correct, but it marginalizes those who are not apart of the left and right jabbering, namely those excluded, i.e. immigrants. this also seems to be the issue that we should all take with Brigitte Bardot. While she highlights the tensions created by immigration, she excludes the immigrant narrative, specifically "capitalism's flaws" that which would necessitate such movement. i think that this is in the same with Mr. Gray's shortsightedness as well. As he seems to argue, the left and right are functions of capital, or like two sides of the same coin. while i think this is undeniable, it excludes political struggle outside of plutocracy. (where as the distinction of capital is not). marginalized groups get pissed when their religion is dissed on and leftist see that as an issue to get votes with. i think this what Mr. Gray means when he says that we should dump the left and right as puppets or tools, but i think this call falls flat. Understanding, i think, racisms role as a way of deflecting much needed effort and criticism upon why immigration happens would serve us best, as opposed to who is a racist and the political meanderings of the left and right. Its not an issue that the left and right are controlled by whom ever we point to ("extremist muslims," or Friedman). the issue is in the simple question why. asking it really is simple, but i think it isnt stressed enough. 'Why' opens avenues for narratives of those who are excluded, the ones that are much more affected by the swaying of politics then most computer owning, karl marx fanatics (dont waste ink on that one, just a "jab" from below). even though one could argue that Mr. Gray paid interests to these groups with his ramble, i dont think it was explitically stated. that is what i think is needed most of all: specificity and explicity. If we arent very clear on explaining why immigration is an issue, then the left and right will use the ignorance of the many to dominate. In this respect, i think we are all much more responsible for the (re)actions that take place in politics. If we emphasize learning and knowledge instead of finger pointing, i think we could move forward in developing a new critique of modern life. I guess maybe we should all just go back to first grade to learn that sharing and understanding are the golden rules and pointing fingers is not nice.

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com" onclick="return newWindow(this.href);">rasputin-AT-teleport.com> wrote:

… to more than the "free speech" jaw of the proletariat…

In boxing, the setup or "jab flurry" precedes the "knockout punch". Today, the so-called "final solutions" to capitalism's flaws have plutocratically-funded "left" and "right" jabs - again, as in the German and Russian "world order" dress-rehearsals � and, the "momentum" shall once again be played out by the proletariat, dazed before, and programmed after those co-dependent "jabs". People who do not "learn" from their mistakes suffer less from a quantity of information than from being carriers/hosts to the bucolic plague, wherein they are [character-colonized] human capital performing for the audience of generalized capital. The "left" and "right", unless dumped as the puppet/tools that they are, will do to us exactly as they have always done: act as servants bearing our heads on a platter.
- Chris Gray

_______________

In the 1960s, Brigitte Bardot was France's national icon, a pouty-lipped poster girl for the glories of her home country. So it is a sign of how radically times have changed that yesterday's silver-screen darling is today's enemy of the people.

Bardot's "crimes", such as they are, are straightforward: She has committed the sin of speaking frankly and unapologetically about her country's hostile Muslim immigrant population and � what is evidently worse � questioning the compatibility of some Muslim religious practices with Western society. Common sense, one might think, or least subjects fit for fruitful debate.

Not in modern France. Last week, the erstwhile cinema siren went on trial on the charge of inciting "racial hatred against Muslims." If convicted, she could face a two-month suspended prison sentence and nearly $24,000 in fines.

The basis for the charge is utterly bogus. It stems from a letter that Bardot wrote to President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2006, in which she complained about the practices of Islamic immigrants. In particular, Bardot was put off by the ritual of Eid al-Adha, a Muslim feast in which sheep and goats are slaughtered by having their throats slit. A longtime animal-rights activist, Bardot found the practice abominable.

Her mistake was in thinking that she had the freedom to say so. But as France struggles to control a large [Muslims make up nearly ten percent of the country] and increasingly radicalized Muslim population critics of Islamism are finding themselves more actively persecuted by national authorities than the Islamists themselves.

Bardot is a case in point. Her latest legal woes may seem troubling, but they are only the latest battle in a larger war waged by Islamic radicals and their allies to suppress all criticism of Islam and its more militant and anti-Western incarnations. It speaks to the success of these state-backed exercises in intimidation that Bardot has been convicted for "inciting racial hatred" on four separate occasions.

Bardot's trials, literal and figurative, at the hands of the Fifth Republic's multicultural enforcers date back to the early 1990s, when she first spoke out against the slaughtering of animals for religious purposes. Although Bardot directed her attacks against Muslims and Jews, it was her criticism of the former that got her branded as a racist. By 1997, Bardot stood convicted on the charge of "inciting racial hatred" after suggesting in the French daily Le Figaro that France was beset by a "foreign over-population," including with Muslim immigrants.

It was unclear, then as now, how criticism of a non-racial group, in this case Muslims, could be considered "racist". Nor was it apparent why an issue as fundamental to the welfare of a nation as immigration was suddenly to be deemed off-limits for discussion. But the Orwellian subtext of the case was impossible to miss: There were some things that French citizens simply were not allowed to discuss.

Bardot pointedly ignored the lesson. The following year, she likened the slaughter of animals in Islamic rituals to the throat-slitting favored by Islamic fundamentalists in North Africa, implying that the connection was not coincidental. It was a provocative point, to be sure, but by no means an unreasonable one. Where the world's leading religions have shed their cruelest tendencies, Islam as practiced in much of the world � one need only recall the gruesome decapitation murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl � retains its more savage elements.

In any case, criticizing religious practices would seem to be entirely consistent with European free-speech statutes, especially in anticlerical France. And, indeed, a lower court initially found Bardot's comments to be protected by free-speech laws. That was too much for an appeals court, however, and before long it reversed the decision and slapped Bardot with a fine. Free speech was a fine thing, apparently, so long as it didn't offend Muslims.

It would not be the last time that Bardot incurred the wrath of French censors. In 2000, she was again convicted of "racist" thought crimes for writing what she called an "Open Letter to My Lost France", in which she raised concerns about Muslim immigration. As on past occasions, the merits of her concerns were not specifically examined, their focus on Muslims being deemed sufficient proof their unacceptability for public discussion � this even as French banlieues, home to unassimilated Muslim immigrants, seethed with the violent hatred that would erupt in riots across France in 2005.

Bardot was undaunted. In 2003, she again ran afoul of "anti-racism laws" when she published A Cry in the Silence, a book decrying what she called "the Islamisation of France", and pointing out the obvious ties between the September 11 attacks and Islamic extremism. In that book, Bardot also cautioned against the dangers of rubbishing Western freedoms to accommodate political sensitivities. "For 20 years we have submitted to a dangerous and uncontrolled underground infiltration", she wrote. "Not only does it fail to give way to our laws and customs. Quite the contrary, as time goes by it tries to impose its own laws on us." As if to demonstrate her point, French authorities proceeded to fine her 5,000 euros for offending Muslims. [Revealingly, Bardot's views proved far more popular among the French public, which turned A Cry of Silence into a bestseller.]

To understand just how sinister are the attacks on Bardot it is useful to consider the group that repeatedly has brought suit against her, the Movement Against Racism And For Friendship Between Peoples (MRAP). Inaccurately called a human-rights group, the MRAP is in fact an aggressive silencer of free-speech.

Its most famous contribution to French political life was to thwart the sale of the late Oriana Fallaci's 2002 book, Anger and Pride, on the grounds that it supposedly incited racial hatred against Muslims. Similarly, when Bardot published A Cry in the Silence in 2003, the MRAP pronounced it "unacceptable", thus appointing itself the arbiter of what French citizens should and should not be allowed to read.

But of course groups like the MRAP would be inconsequential were it not for the dangerous proclivity of the French legal establishment for treating their fictitious allegations of racism with unmerited seriousness. In this context, it was illuminating when a French prosecutor last week called for unusually stiff penalties against Bardot in the current case against the actress because she was a "bit tired of trying Madame Bardot". How much easier it would be for that civil servant and countless others like her if nuisances like Bardot would simply surrender their right to speak freely.

Bardot may not be the most artful of social commentators, but then she doesn't need to be. Nothing demonstrates the prescience of her warnings � not least her warning about the dangers of sacrificing Western liberties to accommodate the extreme demands of hostile minority groups � so much as the ongoing efforts of the French state to silence the woman it once hailed as an idol.

- from "The War on Brigitte Bardot" by Jacob Laksin

_______________

And not just in France are critics of Islamic fanaticism being silenced by the anti-freedom "progressives". If anyone dared to suggest a mullah screeching "Kill the Jews" should be brought to court for hate-speech, even if members of his mosque had been caught killing Jews, the liberal-left would be hot to defend them, jumping up and down screaming "Fascism! Fascism!" But an old woman, who expresses her opinion even in private letters, is fair game for the New Inquistion and liberal thought-police, and they will all line up to "stand in solidarity with our Muslim brothers", even as those "brothers" plot the demise of their liberal supporters.

Amazing, yet another outspoken woman is being crushed under the left-wing jack-boot in the West, for daring to speak the awful truth about Islam.

- from a letter to the OBRL_News_Bulletin Yahoo group by James DeMeo