The New York State Senate voted against gay marriage:
In the debate before the vote, “Eighteen senators [supporting gay
marriage] gave impassioned speeches, often about family members who
survived the Holocaust and discrimination and would want gays to be
equal under law.”
This is a remarkable commentary on the usefulness of the Holocaust to
advance the destruction of the traditional culture of the West. (Of
course, the other main usefulness of the Holocaust is in defending
anything that Israel does.) I have nothing against homosexuals. As I
noted previously, “Homosexuals have ethnic interests
just like everyone else, and they can promote those interests even if
they don’t themselves have children. It seems to me that one way for
homosexuals to promote their ethnic interests is to acknowledge
heterosexual marriage as a specially protected cultural norm — its
special status guaranteed because of its critical importance in creating
and nurturing children.”
These Jewish activists are not interested in defending or creating a
culture that is adaptive for White Americans. Their attitudes are
entirely determined by their Jewish identity. And since the
Enlightenment, the main thrust of Jewish intellectual and political
activism has been motivated by hostility to the people and culture of
the West. The same “logic” often surfaces when Jewish activists defend
massive non-White immigration.
As Charles Silberman pointed out,
“American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their
belief—one firmly rooted in history—that Jews are safe only in a society
acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a
diversity of religious and ethnic groups.
It is this belief, for
example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming
majority of U.S. Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal
stance on most other so-called ‘social’ issues.”
Indeed, as Earl Raab famously noted,
The Census Bureau has just reported that about
half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European.
And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point
where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.
We [Jews] have been nourishing the American
climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate
has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our
population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional
constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.
Going through boxes of old family records I
came across a picture (see below), which was part of a Sunday supplement
to the March 22, 1964 edition of Memphis’s local newspaper. The purpose
of the supplement was to celebrate the grand opening of First Tennessee
Bank’s new skyscraper headquarters on Madison Avenue in downtown
Memphis.
The picture is the assembled managerial staff of the entire bank,
including all of its branches. Note the lack of “minorities” and women.
The photograph, taken at the main banking lobby of the new facility,
looks like a casting call for the iconic 1950s era movie starring
Gregory Peck, The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit. What struck me
most about the picture was how times have changed. I currently bank at
three different banks and out of the three there is only one
White male working in a position visible to the public. All the rest are
women and minorities — predominantly Black women, then Black men, and
an occasional White woman. Back then, almost all the bank managers were
White males. Today, almost none are.
What to make of this? Some might regard this as poetic justice, but
the so-called Civil Rights Movement was sold to the American public on
the premise that it was to eliminate discrimination and prejudice based
on race. Are we to believe that no White males are better qualified for
managerial positions than the current diverse managerial staff, or that
no White males want those jobs? Obviously diversity doesn’t mean
diversity at all, but rather the elimination of White males from the
workplace.
To my mind this is emblematic of the transparent falsehood upon which
all liberal equality movements are based. Pursuing the rubric that
“Diversity is our Greatest Strength,” White males have been
systematically purged from positions of leadership and prominence in
large institutions and businesses throughout America, and replaced by
“Affirmative Action” hires. White males are no longer wanted or welcome
at select colleges and universities, professional schools, or large
business enterprises like First Tennessee Bank. Every enterprise and initiative launched by the Left since the Brown v. Board decision in 1954 has had the effect of reducing White birthrates.
With Brown
and public school integration, Whites reacted by sending their children
to private schools and limited the number of children they had to the
number they could afford to send to private school, which almost always
meant fewer White children born in such diverse locales. The Sexual
Revolution, Drug Culture and the No-fault Divorce initiative were as
much a part of liberal agenda as the so-called Civil Rights, feminism
and “Gay Rights” movements, and all not only caused but were designed to
reduce White birthrates and displace Whites, particularly White men,
from positions of power, prominence and authority.
How is this displacement linked to the picture featured below? F. Roger Devlin, in his excellent book Sexual Utopia in Power (see Red Ice interview)
makes the point that women are sexually attracted to alpha males which,
at least in advanced first world societies such as modern day America,
mean men who are socially dominant and wealthy and therefore better able
to provide the resources needed to sustain the prosperity required to
live well and support the successful raising of children. In 1964 the
men in this bank lobby photograph would have represented a happy hunting
ground for White women seeking an alpha male husband.
Such White men
are now becoming an endangered species, thanks to liberal policies like
workplace and educational affirmative action. Women who out-earn and
out-prestige their husbands due to affirmative action in the workplace
often come to feel that they’ve “outgrown” their husbands, who then find
themselves in divorce court despite living blameless lives.
Women
simply don’t respect men who earn less than they do. Any man who is a
so-called “house-husband” is destined for a quick divorce based on my
observations.
Meanwhile, the White children of such marriages often
become what Dr. Andrew Fraser of Occidental Observer calls, “the collateral damage of the divorce industry,”
and as such are denied the high-investment parenting which is necessary
for high achievement in a First World economy such as ours. This is the
Left’s way of evening the scales of child rearing which they feel
unfairly favors Whites. Our current opioid epidemic is filled with such
children.
The newly “liberated” wife, now free to pursue her heart’s
desire, sets her cap for an alpha male who is willing to have sex with
her but balks at marriage. Net result? Fewer White children and those
who do survive being denied their birthright of high investment
parenting and thereby leading diminished lives.
A photograph of the White male managerial staff at First Tennessee
Bank today would be an almost empty page. Affirmative action has
drastically diminished the supply of White men with good jobs and
promising careers, as has the outsourcing of middle class sustaining
manufacturing jobs, thereby making White men less attractive to White
women.
Love may be a many splendored thing, but in today’s America, a
long term “til death do you part” marriage is becoming rarer and rarer
by the day. Affirmative action leads to higher divorce rates and lower
White birthrates.
Some of the men pictured in the photograph below were personally
known to me. They were, to a man, good providers – straight and strong
men, faithful to their wives and attentive to their children. Many were
church elders and community leaders – social lions, so to speak, and
leaders in every good way. They typically had large families of three or
more children and stable marriages. Divorce was unusual and a career
buster back in those better days.
The changes in family life since then
aren’t the result of coincidence, but are part of the Left’s planned
program and assault on the nuclear family and, ultimately, the White
race. The relentless reduction in White birthrates continues apace, and
on the very moment that Whites become a minority in this country I
predict that minority rights from that moment forward will be a thing of
the past.
We need to stop mouthing platitudes about equal opportunity and start
thinking about our multicultural mess.
I have done all the thinking
that I care to do on the subject and I don’t care a fig about how Blacks
react to the well deserved outlawing of affirmative action.
Unless they
are the most qualified candidate for any given position, they don’t
deserve the places and privileges obtained through affirmative action.
Why should anyone care if a thief regrets returning his ill-gotten
gains? If you’re one of us, where’s your sympathy for the lives and
careers of White men who have been sacrificed on the altar of political
correctness? It is a widely known propensity for White elites to lavish
beneficence on those at the bottom of society, while regarding with
thinly veiled contempt fellow Whites one rung down the social ladder
from themselves. This, as Marc Anthony observed in Shakespeare’s Julius
Caesar, is “the unkindest cut of all.”
This lack of empathy and racial
solidarity is at the heart of everything that ails us as a race.
Affirmative action is wrong for many reasons, not the least of which
being because it violates the explicit language of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, upon which it is supposedly based. It was largely done through
executive (presidential) orders and it can be undone the same way.
What about the White men and women whose careers and livelihoods have
been lost to affirmative action? Affirmative action gained real
traction around 1969 under the first Nixon term (so much for relying on
Republicans to protect the interests of White people).
This would have
been the same year that an early baby boomer, born in 1951 and aged 18,
would have graduated high school and entered college. His college
admission prospects would undoubtedly have been diminished by
affirmative action admission policies then in place unless he was
extremely well-connected. In other words, if his daddy had been an
extremely wealthy liberal alum of the college of his choice. Four years
later, in 1973, his graduate or professional school admission prospects
would have been similarly diminished. He likely would have to attend a
lesser law school or shut out of medical school entirely (like Alan
Bakke in the famous early 70s U.S. Supreme Court case) due to
affirmative action. Later, in the mid to late 70s, after graduation, his
job prospects would have been similarly diminished due to affirmative
action hiring policies. That hypothetical baby boomer is now 66 years
old. We’re not talking about a lost weekend here. We’re talking about a
lost life with negative intergenerational consequences. He and his
families upward social mobility has been sacrificed so our elites can
feel better about themselves, while the children of White elites, like
the Bushes or the Kennedys or the Gores, still manage to go to Harvard
or Yale.
Meanwhile, as American Whites continue to suffer officially
sanctioned, legal racial discrimination called affirmative action at the
hands of a regime nominally run by Whites, more American Blacks live in
poverty today than in 1955.
Apparently liberalism was tougher on Blacks
than segregation. Working class and middle class Whites are the primary
victims of racially discriminatory laws and a regime that hates them,
while Blacks are the collateral damage of Leftist policies.
Whites need
advocates as dedicated to the advancement of our interests as Blacks and
Jews have. We deserve them and we will no longer accept half-hearted,
pastel leadership.
Whites, particularly working class and lower middle
class Whites are fed up with being sold out by our elites. We need
strong advocates and we reject all other. The good news is that all it
takes to reverse this miscarriage of justice is leadership with the
courage to beard the lion. Those men will rise. Until then, the future of our race hangs in the balance. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Jonathan
Freedland, a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the
demographic eclipse of the British people in their own homeland as “a kind of triumph,”
has devoted the last twelve months of his miserable journalistic life
to neurotic attacks on the Trump presidency. His hyperbolic writings at
the Guardian, while making little original contribution to the
intellectual debate over the progress of the Trump administration, have
instead revealed much about the paranoid preoccupations of Freedland,
the Left, and elements of the organized Jewish community.
Until recently, Freedland’s rantings have been predictable. In Freedland’s caricature-like portrayals, Trump emerges
as a shameless, dictator-like figure who “respects no limits on his
lust for power.” Rarely shy of a dramatic turn of phrase, Freedland
writes about his prior enthusiasm for the Constitution of the United
States — a document he sees as guaranteeing a multicultural state — and
his growing unease that this same document somehow permitted “a
dangerous man” like Trump to assume office: “Trump is testing my
admiration for that document — testing it, perhaps, to destruction.”
Freedland has lamented that democracy in America “now stands naked — and
vulnerable.”
Freedland’s opposition to the Trump administration, interpreted on
the basis of his own words and arguments, is not rooted merely in
generic Leftism. It also comprises an element of ethnic self-interest.
Freedland perceives Trump to be obstructive to Jewish social and
political objectives, and this is most apparent in his journalism for
the Jewish Chronicle. While he rarely, if ever, mentions his Jewishness to the Guardian’s mass readership, in his writings at the JC Freedland is significantly less circumspect. In March, for example, he wrote in the JC that Trump “is no friend of ours and the correct Jewish stance on Trump was one of vigilant opposition.”
Trump’s
‘crimes,’ according to Freedland, have included the White House
statement marking Holocaust Memorial Day which did not mention Jews or
antisemitism. Freedland further complains that Trump “has no instinctive
sensitivity for Jewish concerns. Any condemnation of antisemitism has
to be either scripted for him or else extracted under pressure. More
troublingly, he has an uncanny knack for speaking to and about Jews in a
way that thrills antisemites.” More embarrassingly for Freedland, he
was one of the most vicious and persistent critics of Trump’s assertion
that the bomb threats called into a number of Jewish buildings were
probably made by Jews. At the height of the controversy, Freedland had
written:
Trump was asked in a meeting of states attorneys-general
about the wave of bomb threats to Jewish community centres. According
to those present, Trump speculated that, rather than taking these
incidents at face value, they should consider that “sometimes it’s the
reverse, to make people — or to make others — look bad.” Trump
reportedly used the word “reverse” two or three times. What can this
mean, except an implication that these threats to Jewish buildings were
made by Jews themselves, to damage Trump? The notion of “false flag”
attacks is a staple theme of the far right. In this context, it is a
classic antisemitic trope: that anti-Jewish attacks are invented by
cunning Jews to win underserved sympathy.
How unfortunate for Freedland that this ‘classic antisemitic trope’ was later very soundly confirmed.
Not one to waste his talents, Jonathan Freedland has for several
years published fiction under the pseudonym Sam Bourne. His earliest
pulp novels appear to have been an attempt to cash in on the success of
Dan Brown’s thriller formula, and the syllable similarity in the two
names shouldn’t be considered accidental. In these novels, one can
discern Freedland/Bourne using fiction to play out personal fantasies.
For example, The Righteous Men (2006) is a trashy religious
thriller which derives its subject matter from Jewish folklore and has
“a faction of the Christian Church” in the ‘bad guy’ role. The book was
later followed by The Final Reckoning (2008), a revenge fantasy
about a group of so-called “Holocaust survivors” who set out to
assassinate former National Socialists.
----------------- To Kill The President, Freedland/Bourne’s very recently
published ‘thriller,’ has taken matters to a new extreme, blending the
author’s history of anti-Trump journalism with his penchant for
fictional ethnic revenge fantasies. Of course, no-one in the Trump
administration is named in the latest novel, but Freedland makes no
attempt to disguise his meaning. In the ‘feminist’ plot of To Kill the President,
a female White House aide (and “avowed liberal”) uncovers a conspiracy
to murder a recently elected populist president who unexpectedly won an
election against a female Democrat who attracted criticism for being
careless with her email service. The President, described as a “cheat
and bigot,” offends the political and media establishments with “the
tweets, the lies, the grotesque misconduct, the acts of unwarranted
aggression.” One scene includes the President grabbing a female
assistant by her genitals in the Situation Room, where staff have been
summoned in the middle of the night because the President plans to
launch missiles at China and North Korea.
Using a puppet then, Freedland gets to vent his spleen, casting the
most vulgar accusations and insinuations against Trump without fear of a
libel suit.
Freedland’s portrayal of Steve Bannon is also noteworthy. The novel’s
President, an unstable demagogue, is ultimately a marionette dancing to
the tune of a “ruthless chief strategist” with an Irish name — in this
instance Bannon becomes Crawford ‘Mac’ McNamara. McNamara/Bannon
saunters around the White House as if he is President, talking down to
women and acting every inch the alpha male. The Bannon caricature
presented by Freedland has been likened to a “middle aged rock star.”
One senses that Freedland is made deeply uneasy by Bannon’s opaque role
within the White House administration, as well as his perceived
masculinity — not to mention his opposition
to Muslim immigration and his generally populist attitudes.
Much could
be read into the fact that Freedland offers no fictional portrayal of
Jared Kushner.
The novel thus offers insight into the minds of our opponents. Their
fears, insecurities, and yes, their sick fantasies, are right here in
black and white. But most importantly this is a work of incitement. Given the current context of increasingly violent Leftist conduct and
rhetoric, To Kill The President should be interpreted as a very
dangerous and deliberately targeted flirtation with the idea of
political assassination.
Even Mark Lawson, one of Freedland’s colleagues
at the Guardian, writes at the end of his review
of the book: “Even committed Trump-haters may suffer struggles of
conscience over what would count as a satisfactory resolution of the
plot.”
This is a book that, ultimately, get its “thrills” from the
prospect of the murder of Donald Trump. The mainstream publication and promotion of To Kill The President
should be interpreted as a stark symbol of the degradation and
co-option of our cultural and political life by neurotic, twisted, and
hateful elements within our gates.
-------------------
All is not well in Christendom.
Today, the Church made an appeal to donate to something for Africa. Well, they lost me at “Africa”. I don’t believe in “mission work”.
The greatest mission field for Christians today is Christendom.
The greatest mission population for Christendom today is our own brothers and sisters, in our own lands.
Please stop bleating and appealing for Africans, Haitians,
Guatemalans, Syrians, Burmese, and the rest of the non-White world. They
are all on the upswing, on the move, and on track to take out eight
Christians for every one of them that makes it into our lands.
How, you ask? First, by literally displacing our children and grandchildren.
In Germany, Angela Merkel’s communist state let down the gates on
September 5th, 2015, and has let in MILLIONS of unvetted,
anti-Christian, non-White savages. Merkel is now seizing property,
namely houses and apartments of White German citizens, and giving them
to “refugees”.
The “refugees” go on to destroy everything, whole cities, once they
are here. I know personally of German families, who, after having been
German for over five hundred years, have now been driven out of Germany
altogether by “migrants”.
Just look at Paris:
a romantic weekend in Paris for your 25th wedding anniversary? That is a
pathetic joke now. The French would rather have millions of lone black
male savages swarming their streets than tourists.
Look at what destruction Muslims have intentionally done to ancient statues and relics
of the Church throughout Europe. Italy would rather keep importing lone
black male savages out of Africa, thousands per day now, than have
pilgrims to the Vatican City.
Millions of White girls have been raped in the past few years, thanks
to the satanic policies of the globalists who dictate over every
country in the West. One Million White English schoolgirls have been raped in the United Kingdom by Pakis.
Yet, the politicians yield not to the groaning and pleas of the
voters; more Muslims and non-Whites are being imported every day into
Christendom. The politicians in the West are doing the opposite of good,
the opposite of what the people have cried out for. It is White genocide!
How soon do you forget the slaying of Father Hamel in Normandy, France? Father Jacques Hamel, Normandy, France (Photo credit: oasiscenter.eu)
He was ruthlessly murdered by anti-Christian Muslims (is that redundant?) on July 26, 2016. Here is an excerpt from Wiki:
[Father] Hamel died when his throat was slit by two
Muslim men, Adel Kermiche and Abdel Malik Petitjean, who both pledged
allegiance to the Islamic State. The attack occurred while [Father]
Hamel was saying Mass in his parish in Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray on 26
July 2016. During the attack, [Father] Hamel said “Satan, go!” when
confronted by his killers.
As a woman in the South, it’s not often that I am threatened with being
beaten up. But, it happened last night, and the person who threatened me
was a White guy.
After finishing up business late in the day, I stopped at a coffee shop to use the wifi.
The place was busy; I took the last available seat in a large chair.
Customers came and went. One woman was wearing light flowery layers of
fabric from her head to the floor, her face mostly visible. Her husband
tended to their drinks as she stood looking away from everyone. It was
an unusual sight and got quietly noticed by the customers.
“What do you think about that?” I asked a big White guy down the row from me. “We don’t go for that. I don’t like it,” he said.
The younger guy next to him, also White, was quite talkative,
offering opinions on various topics. He veered into immigration, so, I
asked him to explain his stance on the immigration issue. “I don’t have a
problem with them,” he said, “it’s the system. They need to change the
H1 visa system.”
“Can you define the system that is bringing in millions of
undocumented and illegal aliens? Who is in charge of that system?” I
asked.
He repeated that he didn’t have a problem with any immigrants himself, but that the system needs to be better.
I said, “Millions of illegals don’t care about visas and paperwork;
they just walk right in. We have no documentation on them. Millions of
undocumented aliens are being forced in on us.”
He emitted a panicked laugh but increased the ante, “You don’t know your history. You need to read some history.’
I do know about Mohammed, though. I didn’t think this guy did. He had
said he has a 9-year-old daughter, the same marrying age of Aisha. So, I
asked him, “What if a Muslim guy wanted to marry your daughter?”
“I’m fine with that. I’m not racist!” he grinned.
“I see. You won’t protect your country, from the invasion of
Muslims,” I said, “because you won’t even protect your own daughter from
Muslims.
“F**k you… f**k you… f**k you!!!”
He suddenly exploded and proceeded to have a full-on meltdown.
Stunned, I felt trapped. Everybody in the shop stopped and watched the
guy. He began to manifest body gestures, shaking, head jerking, and
maniacal facial expressions. Was this the real guy finally coming out
from his hip façade? Was there something wrong with the guy? He went
from “I don’t have a problem with” Muslims and immigrants, to having
tremendous problems even thinking and talking about Muslims and
immigrants.
“…grab her by the pu**y…” he continued, directing the comment at me.
The manager came over directly and told him to cool it, and returned to the counter.
The guy kept on with his barrage of bad language, directed at me. I
said in a calm, low voice, “You are a lefty, Marxist, commie.” With an
angry laugh, he rolled his eyes, and cussed some more. He was losing
control.
“… someone needs to punch her in the face!” he exclaimed. It could be heard all over the coffee shop.
Again, the manager came over, knelt down close to the guy and spoke
to him for long moments. The guy seemed to get calmer. But as the
manager walked away, the guy resumed his verbal assault.
Then the big guy between us broke his silence and calmly said, “You
both need to calm down.” Quietly, I firmly said to him, “No, he is the
one losing self-control, not me. He is the violent one who is
threatening me.” I could tell the big guy was looking for his escape.
Quickly, I had to formulate mine.
As the big guy rose to leave, I said loudly, “Walk me out?!” Being a
decent fellow, he obliged. As we exited and rounded the corner of the
building, he saw a parked and manned patrol car. He turned to me and
said, “I can’t be a witness… that.. that guy is my buddy…”
The big guy had cucked out.
I gave a quick glance back into the corner where the crazed guy had been. He had scurried like a cockroach.
I was safe.
To my fellow women of the AltRight, and we already know this: we have
to be careful to protect ourselves. Just because someone is White does
not mean they don’t want to kill you.
We on the right are defending ourselves from the violent left. It’s
the cucks in the middle that worry me more. They could cuck hard left.
We must make that a difficult choice for them.
In the last 30 years, more
mosques and Muslim prayer centers have been built in France than all the
Catholic churches built in the last century.
The Church of Santa Rita used to stand in the fifteenth arrondissement
of Paris. A few weeks after Father Hamel was murdered by Islamic
terrorists, the French police cleared the church. It is now a parking
lot. Police dragged the priests out by their legs as a Mass was being
celebrated.
In France there are laws protecting old trees. But the state is
free to flatten old Christian churches. The vacuums created in the
French landscape are already being filled by the booming mosques.
Cowardly French authorities would never treat Islam as they are now
treating Christianity.
"France is not a random space... fifteen centuries of history and
geography determined its personality. Inscribed in the depths of our
landscape, the churches, the cathedrals and other places of pilgrimage
give meaning and form to our patriotism. Let us demand our civil
authorities to respect it". Two years ago, the French journalist Denis
Tillinac promoted this appeal, signed by dozens of French personalities, after some French imams requested the conversion of abandoned churches into mosques.
A year later, terrorists who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State assaulted the Catholic parishioners in the church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, murdering an elderly priest, Father Jacques Hamel, at the foot of the altar. An outpouring of great emotion followed the most serious attack on a Christian symbol in Europe since the Second World War.
After that attack, the French authorities prevented many Islamist plots against the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Last June, police shot
a Muslim man outside the cathedral after he tried to attack them with a
hammer. Another terror cell of French women, guided by Islamic State
commanders in Syria, had previously been foiled before they could attack
Notre Dame. France's most famous Catholic house of worship is a prime
target for the jihadists. A t the same time, France has been dismissing
the religious and cultural heritage of France's Catholic patrimony,
which, in a time of religious clashes and revival, should instead be
protected as treasures and sources of strength.
Last month, around the time of the first anniversary of the murder of Father Hamel, a wrecking crew demolished the famed Chapel of Saint Martin in Sablé-sur-Sarthe,
built in 1880-1886 and deconsecrated in 2015. A parking lot will
replace the old Christian building. Photographs and videos posted on
social networks, in scenes reminiscent of ISIS' vandalism of churches in Mosul,
show the cross being ripped from the church and the church destroyed. A
few days earlier, in Rouen, not far from where Father Hamel had been
killed, the local authorities ordered the destruction of the
Saint-Nicaise Church's presbytery, for "safety reasons".
The
Chapel of Saint Martin in Sablé-sur-Sarthe, France, pictured shortly
before it was demolished on July 17, 2017. (Image source: Simon de
l'Ouest/Wikimedia Commons)
In 1907, the French state appropriated all church property,
and now an increasing numbers of local authorities are deciding they
cannot or will not renovate their churches. French mayors call this
process "deconstruction".
The year of Father Hamel's martyrdom, France was very busy
demolishing churches. The Patrimoine-en-blog website, a platform
providing a regular inventory of demolished churches, reports seven
demolished churches in France in 2016 alone, and two in the first half
of 2017. Along with these destroyed Christian buildings, 26 churches were put up for sale
in 2016, and 12 churches were listed for sale in 2015. In 2017, many
churches were converted to offices, apartments, "entertainment centers",
gyms and art galleries.
"Over the past two years, Christian associations have
sold nearly 40 churches throughout the country, at prices ranging from
100,000 to 400,000 euros. Twenty-seven other churches have been
demolished. According to the Catholic Church, more than 1,000 churches
are to be sold or demolished throughout France".
According to a report
from the Observatory of Religious Heritage, presented at the French
Senate, France could lose "5,000 to 10,000 religious buildings by 2030".
Every year, 20 churches are sold and converted in France. The art historian Didier Rykner, who runs La Tribune de l'Art, said that "not since the Second World War have we seen churches reduced to rubble".
These authorities and mayors, so lenient when it comes to presenting
economic reasons for destroying churches, are always generous when it
comes to mosques.
"Nearly 2,400 mosques today, compared to 1,500 in
2003, is the most visible sign of the rapid growth of Islam in France, a
consequence of a population of immigrant origin and the process of
strong re-Islamization", noted an report by the magazine Valeurs Actuelles.
When it comes to Islam, neutrality is abandoned. For example,
"the municipality of Évreux voted for the provision of 5000
square-meters of land, for one symbolic euro, for the project of the
Union of the Muslim Faith".
The author and journalist Élisabeth Schemla
detailed how French mayors have become "builders of mosques". This is
how, in the last 30 years, more mosques and Muslim prayer centers have
been built in France than all the Catholic churches built in the last
century.
The Church of Santa Rita used to stand in the fifteenth arrondissement
of Paris. A few weeks after Father Hamel was assassinated by the
Islamic terrorists, the French police cleared the church. It is now a
parking lot. Police dragged out the priests by their legs as a Mass was
being celebrated. "When France is moved by the martyrdom of Jacques
Hamel and [then Prime Minister] Manuel Valls speaks of financing mosques
and training imams, we do not understand that churches are abandoned to
their sad fate and demolished", Eloise Lenesley wrote at the time in Le Figaro.
In France, there are laws protecting old trees
from indiscriminate cutting. But the state is free to flatten old
Christian churches. The vacuums created in the French landscape are
already being filled by the booming mosques.
Cowardly French authorities would never treat Islam as they are now treating Christianity. Marine Le Pen pointedly asked: "What if we built parking lots on top of Salafist mosques, instead of our churches?"
Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.
