Behind the Façades in France: What expats and the mainstream media (French and American alike) fail to notice (or fail to tell you) about French attitudes, principles, values, and official positions…
Marine Le Pen … who campaigns on an anti-immigration
and anti-European platform, is increasingly seen as a serious
presidential candidate in the 2017 elections
writes Susan Dominus in a lengthy New York Times Magazine piece…
… a recent poll found that if Le Pen ran for president now, she would
finish ahead of all presumed contenders, including Nicolas Sarkozy, a
conservative former president of France, and François Hollande, the
current Socialist president. Much of her party’s support comes from
regions far from Paris, in areas gutted by deindustrialization or in
tiny towns struggling with budget cuts and trying to keep traditional
village life going
There are many who find good
things to say about France's Front National — notably the party's
attempt to get rid, or to diminish the number, of the repressive and extortionate radars
ubiquitous on all the country's highways —
but just because the party is said to be a part of the right should not
let people forget such things as the fact that Marine Le Pen is a critic of the free market and an interventionist in favor of a strong state (like all the other politicians) — having indeed said that "Obama is way to the right of us” (!) — and that France ought to "turn its back" on the American "hyper-power" and "turn towards Russia" and its leader, Vladimir Putin.
Indeed, the New York Times' Susan Dominus writes that
Both anti-establishment and populist, the National Front has cast itself
as a party for the little people, with a mix of proposals that confound
current American notions of right and left. Its platform calls for the
preservation of local services, protectionist trade policies and higher
taxes on the rich…
Vincent Pons, a French academic [and] a
campaign expert — a company he founded provides technological support to
candidates — reminded me how difficult it is to map basic American
assumptions onto the French political landscape. “In France, officially,
we don’t have race,” he said; it is illegal, for example, to ask about
race or religion on any government form. “We just pretend that race does
not matter, but it’s this crazy thing — of course it matters,” he said.
“There are no statistics, so you can make no policy around it. But even
if you tried, you’d be accused of making too much of race.”
Dans l'émission Toutes Les France sur la chaîne France Ô, Erwan Lecoeur et François Durpaire débattent
Alexandre Del Valle et Jean Robin sur le sujet "FN et Pouvoir
(Si Loin, Si Proche)". Ce dernier, éditeur d'Enquête
& Débat, essaie de dénoncer la censure généralisée.
In 2015, the State of Texas is the envy of the rest of the United
States. Thanks to its low taxes, a relatively small regulatory system, a
limited government, Texas created more than 450,000 in 2014, the
highest net nonfarm job growth in the nation. The Texas Model is
thriving. The freer the markets, the more options people have for jobs,
for products and services, and for opportunities.
Yet, there is something that the Lone Star State surprisingly falls short on: school choice.
And why should one be in favor (anywhere — in Texas, in another State, or abroad) of amplifying choice? asks Carine in another post. Because Supporting School Choice is Being “Pro-Children”. At
Archbishop Carroll High School,
a catholic private high school [in Washington, DC, we] saw students
that were eager to participate, with teachers walking around the
classroom. Clearly teachers are, as we would often hear, “in front of
their students” and not behind their desk. The average class size is
20-24 with an 11 to 1 student/teacher ratio. Students [76% of whom describe themselves as African-American] were amazingly
focused. No computer, or tablet are used: the Principal explained that
they chose not to use new technologies systematically, but are open to
let student use their computer or tablet if they wish.
If such stories, featured for everyone to see in documentaries such as Waiting for Superman, or The Ticket, are not enough to make the case for school choice, it is hard to know what is.
But what exactly was it that made this French immigrant better understand the whole debate? Carine lists Five Themes (click the link)…
“Hands up, don’t shoot!”—the rallying cry of the Ferguson protestors (or rioters, in some cases)—was always a fiction, the Department of Justice admitted last week.
Michael Brown’s hands were not up and he was not attempting to surrender when Officer Darren Wilson killed him in self-defense.
That Eric Holder is finally admitting this, five months after autopsy
results indicated that Brown’s hands must have been at his side, is
progress, I suppose. But don’t expect too much from the attorney general
too quickly. Baby steps. Despite admitting that there’s no evidence
that Officer Wilson did anything wrong, Holder still wants us to
contemplate why so many people believed the lie. “It remains not only
valid – but essential – to question how such a strong alternative
version of events was able to take hold so swiftly, and be accepted so
readily,” he said.
Holder’s clear implication is that the lie could only have gotten
legs if it had the ring of authenticity in the ears of Ferguson’s black
citizens. So even though it’s not technically true, let’s all pretend
that it speaks to the larger truth that white cops routinely gun down
defenseless black males for sport.
Which they don’t. In this great big country we live in,
liberals have tried and failed to evidence even one example of cops
wantonly murdering unarmed blacks out of racist motives.
… What Holder is trying to say is that even though the “alternative
version of events” has been thoroughly debunked, the narrative lives on.
It always does.
The primacy of narrative over facts is perhaps the greatest enigma of
the leftist mind. “Fake but accurate” seems to be their guiding
philosophy, as evidenced by the 2004 Rathergate scandal. Seemingly
intelligent people really believe that it doesn’t matter that Matthew Shepard wasn’t the victim of a “homophobic” hate crime because surely
someone else was. The same people also find it immaterial that Crystal
Mangum wasn’t actually raped by three Duke lacrosse players because
white men have been raping black women since slave times.
In place of facts they prefer compelling narrative, usually
cultivated at the expense of actual people, their lives and reputations.
The now utterly debunked UVA rape story that Rolling Stone ran in
November is an excellent example. Reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely failed
to conduct even the most basic fact checking; in fact, she promised not
to contact the accused rapists as a condition of getting her exclusive
interview with “Jackie,” the alleged victim, who turned out to be a
fraud.
… This tendency to elevate the narrative over the facts is not a new
feature of the Left. Consider Ray Mungo, the radical 1960s journalist
and co-founder of the Liberation New Service, a wire service for the
underground press. Mungo admitted in his 1970 memoir, Famous Long Ago, “Facts are less important than truth
and the two are far from equivalent, you see; for cold facts are nearly
always boring and may even distort the truth, but Truth is the highest
achievement of human expression.”
… What liberals fail to realize is that their narrative, if it is to be
worth anything, must be supported by facts. Like a house standing on a
crumbling foundation, their larger, capital-T Truth cannot remain
upright while its foundation of smaller truths—what used to be called
“facts”—dissipates. But alas, for liberals, it can. A myriad of concrete
examples can turn out to be bogus and their narrative will still hold,
because they “know” they are correct in the abstract. In their own
minds, they are still right even when they’re wrong, and truthful even
when they’re lying.
Remember When the Media Was Terrified of the Coming Ice Age?
asks Onan Coca regarding the global warming scare.
I know; it's almost as if one might be allowed to think that our self-described élites are not the purveyors of wisdom but little more than simple drama queens.
!
During his explanation of what motivates the hatred towards Robert Murdoch's
flagship TV show —
Hating Fox News, there's a reason for it — Bill O'Reilly asks
What would happen if Fox News were to disappear (08:05-08:30).
Check out especially Charles Krauthammer's comment at 05:25 to 06:15.
Last year, Serguei produced a hard-hitting cartoon on "Super-Tsar Putin" and his muscular saber-rattling in Ukraine, but in the very same issue of Le Monde, needless to say,
Plantu had to, just had to, draw a moral equivalence with Israel and the Palestinians.
Note to those who think this is an immeasurably smart cartoon: unless I am mistaken, there is no party in Kiev which holds that Russia and its people ought to be pushed back into the sea (which sea would that be?!) or that the children of (or the adults who make up) the Ukrainian people ought to blow themselves up in Russian malls and schools.
• Another 400 hectares annexed!!!
• That Putin, what a dirty sonuvabitch!!
• Not at all! This is the West Bank!
Just like in MSM America, as can be seen in its special
40 Urban Legends
piece, the Décodeurs' rule seems to be much more to expose and fight against the ideas and policies
of the right than their equivalents of the left (little if anything on, say, global
warming)… '
Welcome to the United States!
One night a year, all crimes are allowed.
In France,
the Purge films are called American Nightmare — just so you know where the really inhumane and monstrous people live and in what country the real danger to humanity comes from…
For someone who is supposed to be the most intelligent man in the world and the best president in U.S. history as well as someone who understands just about all problems and, just as importantly, has the solution to just about every one of those problems, Barack Obama seems to have a strange dearth of information about the government he leads when scandals about his administration surface. Fox News:
FOR ALL THE VAST INTELLIGENCE RESOURCES at his fingertips, the most powerful man in the world claims he gets a lot of his first dose of inside info on scandals and controversy — like deaths at VA facilities, IRS targeting, Fast and Furious gun-running, the Air Force One NYC flyover, and now Clinton emails — from outside news sources.
… surely a momentous decision like this one can’t be made within the executive branch, behind closed doors, by a group of unelected bureaucrats? And surely they can’t keep the plan secret until it passes?
Constitutionally speaking, they can’t. According to Article I of the
Constitution, the power to create law is vested in the legislative
branch. Legislators are not authorized to abdicate their
responsibilities to a board, much less to the executive branch, which is
where the FCC resides. A decision this important requires a full
hearing in the halls of Congress with a vote by our elected
representatives.
But that’s soooooo twentieth century. If the events of
recent months are any indicator, the United States has officially
transcended the messy process of legislating. We simply don’t decide
contentious issues in Congress anymore. That’s what President Obama and
his proxies are for.
The trend didn’t begin in recent months, or even with the 2009
inauguration of Barack Obama, but it has nonetheless picked up speed
like a runaway train since the Republican landslide of 2014. The
president, if you can still call him that, is now facing some tepid
opposition in Congress, which apparently entitles him to bypass that
body entirely. It’s their fault for opposing his agenda. If they weren’t
so “obstructionist” or “dysfunctional,” they’d give the president
whatever he wants, no questions asked. The same principle does not apply
to all presidents, of course, only this one.
… there’s the issue of President Obama’s
executive amnesty for illegal aliens, which is clearly illegal, and he
knows it. He even said so on Univision, warning Hispanic voters that
there’s a process to changing laws and the process matters. “With
respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through
executive order, that’s just not the case…. There are enough laws on the
books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to
enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive
order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my
appropriate role as president.” That was before he decided that the
power was in fact his to wield. Kind of makes you wonder what took him
so long to use it?
The Obama Administration’s argument, as far as I can tell, is that
it’s merely exercising a little prosecutorial “discretion.” Such a thing
does exist but it must be exercised with extreme caution lest justice
devolve into the arbitrary rule of men, which I’m beginning to suspect
is this president’s goal.
Actually changing the law would require congressional action but, the
administration posits, since the administration is not changing the
law, there’s no need. Unfortunately, President Obama said something
quite different when a group of pro-illegal immigration hecklers
interrupted him in Chicago. “You’re absolutely right that there have
been significant numbers of deportations… But what you are not paying
attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,”
Obama said.
Change the law? Can presidents just do that? Apparently no
one ever taught this supposed constitutional scholar that the president
doesn’t get to do whatever he wants just because he thinks he has right
on his side. But alas, the lesson he’s learned in Washington is quite
the opposite. He’s seen that he can change immigration laws and ban a
popular type of ammunition with the snap of his fingers, so what’s to
stop him from regulating the internet? No one has yet stopped him. I’ve
resigned myself to believe that no one ever will.
A few years back, Brenda Bedrick wrote from East Greenwich, R.I., to the New York Times a missive that remains timely to this day:
“The Secret Weapon: All of Us,”
by Nicholas D. Kristof (column, Aug. 29), made my blood boil. I am a
small-business owner and, yes, my clients get to the store on roads
built by everyone, and we use public services paid for by everyone.
Yet,
none of these workers had to use their houses as collateral and none of
them had to worry about paying for the health benefits of their
employees, and not everyone is taking advantage of tax loopholes. This
unrealistic view of the average business owner by the media drains my
spirit.
That's right! Who pioneered the pantsuit in Washington and who did not pioneer the pantsuit in Washington is of utmost interest these days!
Incidentally, what this does is allow America OnLine to eulogize another member of Congress, needless to say also a Democrat (in the person of Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski, aka a "pint-sized trailblazer with a huge legacy" as well as "one of the fiercest fighters for women, families and the middle class").
(There is another State Department email story on today's second AOL page, but it is not the private email account scandal per se, it is not even an AOL story, it is a simple one-line link to a Fox News story on the Benghazi probe.)
So wait a minute: how about the real story? How about the former secretary of state's private email account scandal?
It's there alright.
Yup, AOL does do its duty and does cover it.
But…
needless to say, it shows Hillary Rodham Clinton in a positive light (she is responding to the "controversy" pro-actively while showing total transparency on the issue, "urging" — urging — the State Department to release the emails) and…
Update 2: perhaps someone at AOL reads No Pasarán? Or, perhaps, Instapundit? In any case, within hours of
the Glenn Reynolds re-post, America OnLine effectively and suddenly put the Hillary story (the email article, not the pantsuit article) in its number 1 position. Where it remained for… a few hours, before disappearing entirely from the 40-section news department.
or at least the portion attributed to
conservative columnist George Will. Last September, Politifact
“corrected” Will when he tweeted, “Some doctors say Ebola can be
transmitted through the air by a ‘sneeze or some cough.’” His statement
was later rolled up with other Ebola-related claims and deemed the
biggest fib of 2014.
Not that Will’s statement was very definitive. “Some doctors” could
mean only a handful, but even so, Jon Greenberg of Politifact couldn’t
let it stand. His rebuttal to Will was rather hard to follow as it
meandered quickly into the realm of irrelevancy. Greenberg also admitted
that he was unsure which doctors Will was quoting.
… Besides common sense, there’s another
reason to believe that Ebola could in fact be transmitted by cough and
sneezes—the fact that the World Health Organization (WHO) said in
October that the Ebola virus could be transmitted exactly that way,
provided that the person on the receiving end has an open cut or sore.
So yes, “some doctors” do make that claim and they work at the WHO.
This isn’t the first time that Politifact’s “Lie of the Year” turned
out not to be a lie at all. Its 2012 “Lie of the Year” was a claim made
by candidate Mitt Romney that the bailed-out semi-American automaker
Chrysler had plans to build a Jeep factory in China. Politifact rebuffed
Romney, citing a statement from a Chrysler spokesman who declared,
“Jeep has no intentions of shifting production of its Jeep models out of
North America to China.” Apparently, the whole thing was debunked
because a corporate spokesman denied it, which is an interesting
standard of proof that I’d wager Politifact employs selectively.
Then, in January of 2013, Chrysler and its parent company Fiat
announced plans to open a new factory in Guangzhou, China. Which is
exactly what Romney said.
Just don’t accuse Politifact of having a partisan agenda. They hate
that. It’s not that they consistently side with the Democrats, it’s just
that the Democrats are always right. Or at least most of the time.
Since Politifact started giving out “Lie of the Year” awards in 2009, it
has awarded it to conservative or Republican claims four times, often
for inconsequential statements, and at least twice for statements that
turned out to be true.
It awarded its “Lie of the Year” to liberal or Democratic claims only
twice. Surprisingly, it even gave Obama’s “If you like your plan, you
can keep your plan” fib its “Lie of the Year” Award in 2013. The
difference is that Obama’s lie really was a big fat whopper that
everyone knew to be false but repeated endlessly in order to get
Obamacare passed.
In any case, fact checking has gotten to be rather absurd. What was
supposed to be a nonpartisan exercise in discerning the truth through a
haze of competing claims has become nothing but partisan hackery.
It isn’t even honest partisan hackery. It’s liberals
pretending not to be liberals, which I’ve noticed they do a lot. “Fact
checking” is nothing more than reliably liberal mouthpieces going to bat
for the Democrats while pretending to be umpires calling balls and strikes.
The American journalistic establishment, you see, claims to value objectivity.
… Fact checking is arguably the most corrupt business in America,
second perhaps only to personal injury lawyers. The little charade fact
checkers play, in which they pretend to help readers navigate a sea of
chicanery, is really getting quite tiresome.
We live in hard times. This is a hard, hard time for the Republic.
We live in the era of the Drama Queen.
We have been digging ourselves deeper and deeper into that era for the past fifty years.
Leftists are drama queens. Leftists constantly erupting in hysterics — male (girly men?) or female — rule the roost.
Racism! Patriarchy! Sexism! Rape on campus!
Global warming! Christianity's bigotry! The reactionary average American! Republicans' hate speech and hate thought! US history, a litany of racism and oppression! All the founding fathers, hypocritical sonzabitches! All our ancestors, imperialist mongrels! Oppression of women, and gays, and transgenders!
(The only person, the only people, who come out positive in this (self-serving) world view are — surprise, surprise — the drama queens themselves! Also known as the wise men, and the wise women, arriving as knights in shining armor on their white steeds to fight for the victims and the martyrs of the world.)
Whenever there is drama — whenever there is a crisis (or the semblance of a crisis) — the left's drama queens win.
There must be constant drama — crises, if you prefer — or the movement loses momentum and/or comes to a standstill and/or dies out.
We have been in the midst of the triumph of the drama
queens and the Chicken Littles and the other arrested-development adolescents since the 1960s, with the movement reaching its zenith with the 2008
election.
Ain't that true? Can't the biggest drama queen of all be found in the White House? [Barack Obama]
When the Republicans won the 2014 elections, they didn't realize that this was actually manna in heaven to the top drama queen of them all.
— I will defend the poor innocent martyred immigrants against the monstrous Republicans, against the ignominious inhabitants of Middle America! — I will defeat the aggressive and clueless warlike policies of the despicable Republicans, regarding the relations with (say) Russia or Cuba, provide a reset, and open an era of peace and prosperity and friendship with those poor, misunderstood nations! — I will fight for the American people tenaciously, by attacking the nation's, indeed the world's, main enemy, its only enemy (no, not Isis, not Al Qaeda, not the Russians, not the Chinese, not the Iranians, not any foreign dictator), and that as relentlessly and as often as I can — the contemptible members of America's Republican Party and the clueless average American citizen.
Anything that will provide food for drama, for a crisis, may, and will, be used.
In no sense whatsoever is there the slightest value in unity.
Creating chaos is their raison d'être.
War, and crises, with the opposition must be used all the time, and no event may occur without it being used for political advantage.
All these battles in Congress makes Obama happy. He has created his crises, one after the other. He appears as the knight in shining armor come to save the American people.
With the Homeland Security shutdown, you have to wonder if nothing would make Obama happier if there was a terrorist attack on some place in America.
He could blame it, would blame it, on the Republicans.
And the media would gobble it up.
Why? Because journalists are drama queens too (they have to be, that is how the "newsmakers" survive). That is why so many of them are Democrats, while that is why so many leftists go into the news business in the first place (I want to fight for the little man).
(And why do the drama queens, in- or outside the media, hate conservatives? Republicans? Fox News? Where does their sense of anger, and revulsion, at Dubya, and Reagan, and Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck originate? The main reason is because the latter are, they were, happy people with a smile on their face, who take pleasure — indeed, pride — in their country, and who are not constantly outraged at everything around them.)
Does Obama deserve to be impeached? Want to impeach Obama?
You know what? Nothing would make Barack Obama happier than to be impeached. Then there would be another drama, another one at which he would be the center, and one which could be milked to increase the fortunes of the Democrat Party.
PS: Do I doubt that Obama is patriotic and loves America?
What is the American Dream? The dream to be rich, i.e., the dream to be powerful, i.e., the dream to be independent — independent of politicians — the dream to be content and feel secure.
This is the American Dream as far back as the 1770s.
This is the America that statists like Obama wanted to "fundamentally transform."
There is nothing Obama resents more than the America where its citizens are independent of the politicians, the élites, and their ever-growing armies of bureaucrats (there to "help them").
The founders' vision was the dream to be rid of Drama Queens — certainly, the dream that we should be rid, that we could be rid, of those drama queens who are in positions of power to rule, or who wish to rule, over us.
Since then, drama queens at home and abroad have done all in their power (Norway's 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, f'r'instance) to make America a Drama Queen-run nation…
Related: Bernie Marcus's dependable, mature golf player acting responsibly to prevent the ice hockey players from going berserk (Republicans are playing golf while the Democrats are playing ice hockey)
Since the Obama Administration
announced its intentions last month to normalize relations with the
“workers’ paradise” of the Caribbean, Governor Christie has asked the
administration to put pressure on Cuba to extradite Joanne Chesimard,
also known by her African nom de guerre Assata Shakur, a black
militant convicted of murdering state trooper Werner Foerster. She
escaped from prison in 1979 and later fled to Cuba where she has been
sheltered ever since.
The Obama Administration seems to be paying lip service to the
Chesimard issue, claiming that “the return of fugitives is one of the
issues on the U.S-Cuban agenda,” according to a USA Today article from
David Jackson. Frankly, their reassurances sound like more of this
administration’s empty promises. The State Department should demand that
Chesimard be extradited as a precondition of diplomatic negotiations. I
say this as someone who believes that our “talk to the hand” foreign
policy toward Cuba needs to change. We should absolutely open up to
Cuba, but we can’t have relations with them while they harbor miscreants
like Chesimard.
Yet I won’t hold my breath waiting for President Obama to press his
advantage to bring a cop killer to justice. After all, if Obama had an
older sister she’d look like Assata Shakur, which tells me that Obama
will side with her by default. He doesn’t have all the facts, nor does
he ever, but he knows that the police acted stupidly…or something.
… President Obama is undoubtedly cut from the same reflexive,
cop-hating cloth as the congresswomen [Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee, both
Democrats from the People’s Republic of California, were actually
embarrassed to have voted for a 1998 resolution calling upon Cuba to
extradite Chesimard], if only a little more cagey about
it. I predict that he will purposely fail to bring Chesimard to justice
and then pretend that he tried his hardest but it just wasn’t meant to
be.
President Obama is (or was), after all, a close friend of Bill Ayers,
a left-wing terrorist whose Weather Underground group bombed NYPD
headquarters, among other acts of terrorism targeting police. Obama has
repeatedly denied the relationship, insisting that Ayers was just some
guy in the neighborhood, but Ayers himself described Obama as a “family
friend” in an updated edition of his terrorist memoir “Fugitive Days”
that was published after Obama was safely elected in 2008. In the same
book, Ayers also admitted hosting an Obama fundraiser at his home,
something which Obama supporters had dismissed as right-wing conspiracy
theories.
Ayers belonged to a movement that spoke openly of “offing pigs,”
rhetoric that was not unusual in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. This
fact has been erased from history so that the era could be remembered as
a time when utopian peace activists employed nonviolence to defeat the
skull-cracking reactionary establishment. But it wasn’t all peace and
love. As the Yippee prankster Abbie Hoffman once said, “I think killing a
cop can be an act of love.” This from a man who was a squishy liberal
compared to the Weather Underground and Black Panthers. The fact that
Hoffman could say that and still maintain his good standing with the
progressive community speaks volumes.
The quickest way to achieve celebrity status among chic leftists is
to blast a cop. Ray Luc Levasseur, Leonard Peltier, Huey Newton, and
Mumia Abu Jamal are but a few of the Left’s favorite cop killers. Most
leftists would never touch a police officer, of course, but only because
they’re chicken excrement, hence all of the jock-sniffing they do when
they find an actual cop killer. They’re like teenage girls at a Beatles
concert circa 1964, only not nearly as composed.
… Even supposed examples of unwarranted violence by police, cited by
leftists as part of a pattern of police brutality, are actually examples
of violence against police. Poor Michael Brown, the “gentle
giant” of Ferguson is dead today because he tried and failed to murder a
patrolman with his own gun. Yet Brown is portrayed as the victim, his
myth padded with now debunked lies about being shot in the back while
his hands were raised. When the Left inverts reality to the extent that a
cop is guilty of murder because he fought for his life when someone
else was trying to murder him, that tells you a lot about how these
people think. The only good cop is a dead cop.
… The belief system of the Left today is so
twisted and bloodthirsty that it excuses and even glorifies those who
gun down police officers.
Presented by immigration author/journalist Roy Beck,
Global humanitarian reasons for current U.S. immigration are tested in
this updated version of immigration author and journalist Roy Beck's
colorful presentation of data from the World Bank and U.S. Census
Bureau. The 1996 version of this immigration gumballs presentation has
been one of the most viewed immigration policy presentations on the
internet.
NumbersUSA
Education & Research Foundation is a non-profit, non-partisan
organization that favors an environmentally sustainable and economically
just America and seeks to educate the public about the effects of high
levels of immigration on U.S. overpopulation, the environment, jobs, and
wages. We use government data to conduct research on the impacts of
U.S. population growth, consumption, sprawl, and current levels of
immigration and educate the public, opinion leaders and policy makers on
the results of those and other studies.
Ready to unwind, ready to let loose — Muslim-style?
Okay, take any hats off your head.
Stand up.
Get one hand (high) up in the air.
Ready?
Set!
And here we go!
WARNING: Before you hit play and watch this, swallow
any liquid (coffee, etc…) that may be in your mouth
(FYI, this Muslim Rave Party earned a post on No Pasarán 8 or 9 years ago,
but I was never able to find it again. Thanks to RV for unearthing it on Youtube.)
Dans l'émission Toutes Les France sur la chaîne France Ô, Erwan Lecoeur et François Durpaire débattent
Alexandre Del Valle et Jean Robin sur le sujet "FN et Pouvoir
(Si Loin, Si Proche)". Ce dernier, éditeur d'Enquête
& Débat, essaie de dénoncer la censure généralisée.
