In France, Eric Zemmour is a famous commentator, “journalist” and “intellectual”. Officially, he is “controversial”; in reality, he is bred and nurtured by the French public audio-visual industry, and remains an intrinsic pillar of the French mainstream (or PAF, paysage audiovisuel français). His books are in every library, bookshop and convenience store. He is a regular on several (subsidized) television and radio programs; he even has his own radio show. His book French Suicide, heavily advertised thanks to the taxpayers’ generosity, was a huge commercial success. He is well-known for his hostile positions towards French Muslims. And although people like Dieudonné are viciously prosecuted in France for crimes of opinion, the judicial response (absurd as it is) has always been benign towards Zemmour.
Zemmour recently appeared on a popular morning radio show to promote his new book. The (captioned) video is linked below (backup here). Watch it from the beginning to hear his usual thoughts on Islam, how it’s about to take over the country, and how we need dictatorship to get rid of it. Skip to 6:25 to hear the moderator (Yves Calvi) ask him about the scoop contained at the end of his book, thus quoted:
There are in France hundreds of Moleenbek and Saint-Denis […] For the time being we confine the army in a scandalous function of protecting infrastructure, religious buildings etc. But the army [état-major] knows that one day will come where it will have to re-conquer these territories that have become foreign in our own land. The plan is already prepared. Its name is “Operation Ronces” [operation “thorn bushes” or “bramble”]. It was designed with the help of the specialists of the Israeli army.”
When asked about his source, Zemmour says it is someone very close to the military’s command. When pressed, he invokes the sanctity and the irrefutability of a journalist’s sources. He further affirms the army is indeed ready to perform a “clean-up” [nettoyage].
“It is the battle of Algiers that will start again. I have not cited this name Ronces in vain. They went to see the specialists of the Israeli army, who advised them to do the same as they did in Gaza; they explained how to proceed; because the Israelis are the specialists, of course; and so the French plan is ready.”
It is naturally absurd to compare the French banlieues, however unruly one believes French Muslims to be, with the open-sky prison that is the Gaza strip. French Muslims are just as oppressed by the French State as the average French Joe is; their enemy is collectivism and economic malfeasance, like it is for 99% of humanity. It is unfortunate so many French-Jewish intellectuals such as Zemmour make nevertheless that very comparison.
So what does Zemmour suggest the Israeli could have taught them? Denying French Muslims their civil rights and treating them like enemy combatants? Razing buildings, schools and hospitals by relying on cluster munitions and white phosphorus? Having French equivalents for the Hannibal directive and the Dahiya doctrine?
It doesn’t make any sense, but still, Zemmour is not a lone voice. He echoes Sarkozy, who recently declared:
“Every Frenchman suspected of being linked to terrorism, because he regularly consults a jihadist website, or his behaviour shows signs of radicalization or because he is in close contact with radicalized people, must be preventively placed in a detention center”. Sarkozy, France’s former president, who announced last month his candidacy for the April 2017 presidential election, said there was no place for “legal niceties” in the fight against terrorism.
This echoes former US general Wesley Clark who said last year:
“There are always a certain number of young people that are alienated, they didn’t get a job, they broke up with their girlfriend, their family doesn’t feel happy here […] we need to look at self-radicalization, we are at war with this group of terrorists; they do have an ideology. In WW2, if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the US, we didn’t say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war. So if these people are radicalized, and they don’t support the US, and they’re disloyal to the US, as a matter of principle, fine, that’s their right; it’s our right and our obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict. We have to get tough on this, not only in the US, but our allies like Britain, Germany and France are going to have to look at their domestic law procedures.”
And this reminds of course of Newt Gingrich saying, in substance, that anyone who personally adheres to the Coran, even if they don’t impose their beliefs upon anyone, needs to be deported, caged or killed.
These guys apparently didn’t get the message that Bruce Willis was supposed to be the bad guy in The Siege (an astonishing pre-911 movie on this very topic).
About Islam, and how “western civilisation” needs to have a war with it. Because 911 was the warning shot, let’s suspend our disbelief and accept the conspiracy theory of bearded aerobats armed with cutters who throw passports out of aircraft cabins seconds before bringing down three steel skyscrapers with two planes. Even then, wouldn’t it make more sense to get angry at the governments we know finance and support Salafist groups? Greeting their dignitaries on red carpets, subsidizing their armies, providing them with weapons, and supporting their wars certainly doesn’t help the cause of fighting terrorism.
Worryingly, this “war of civilisation” against the Islamic world is being sold as an “anti-establishment” idea. If you are against Goldman Sachs and Hillary Clinton, you are for a war with Islam. It is the same Hegelian dialectic as in “you either support the paramilitary force we call the police in the US or you support Black Lives Matter and the snipers who kill cops”. In the case of Islam, you don’t need to believe in the authenticity of Pike’s letter to see something ugly is being planned; or to understand tyranny never limits itself to the minority it targets first.