France : la polémique de l’abaya

Good morning, my friends. A while ago, I was in the United States in Florida. I was talking to pro Trumpers, Republicans, as they say, conservatives, let's say on the right, without being on the far right of the spectrum, but on the right of conservatives. And do you know what? They have managed through political maturity to understand that sometimes the system plays with them by using a certain number of keywords to which they react. They react immediately to these keywords. So what does the system do? Well, it uses these words. For example, there is not a single conservative who will not react, who will not get on his high horse if, for example, there is a law passed on immigration, border protection, a law on the army, the army budget, the police budget, prisons, okay, abortion. There are keywords to which this camp reacts. So now there are natural concerns, There are considerations, values, if you will, on which, of course, we have to be there when the debate is there, we have to be there now. The risk is also the risk of manipulation. It is the risk sometimes, and it is precisely the heart of this conversation that I had with American conservatives is that sometimes the system, sometimes the federal government, sometimes, what does it do? It will issue a law, a directive, a decree, anything with a few key words that are just designed to throw them a bone, create a diversion, and let them run after it, okay? Because they know that they will react to it. In France, for example, in France, if we issue a law on Shisha, I am sure that many people on the right will react quite a bit. It will make them react. We will ban Shisha if we talk about Korba. We will ban Korba in the workplace, in cafeterias. Korba in cafeterias. That's it. Imagine the title, a law or a presidential decree banning the Korba in company cafeterias. And I'm sure there are plenty of people who will rise up and say, the Korba is Islamist. It's a territorial claim. That's it. It's true that it's not from our country. And in fact, they're going to make people react to elements that are ultimately not important. That won't solve the problem, but they're just going to crystallize them around it, uh, or something. A law on the kippah. Watch out for that one. Watch out, watch out. Don't move right away. Huh? That one. Ah, that one is dangerous. Huh? There a law on the kippah. Okay, well, in the same way, we recently passed a law on the bas, okay? So I discovered at the same time as France what an abaya means.

Okay?

So where I come from an abaya is a kind of white garment that men wear to go to prayer, or sometimes not even to go to prayer, sometimes just to play dominoes downstairs. That's all. If you watch my videos that I made in Algeria, for example, I typically wear an abaya. It's worn by men. Women don't wear an abaya. Words change meaning. We have to accept that language changes, shifts, evolves. It's normal. Today we have a law in France that will ban the abaya in schools. So when you're a certain camp, you hear an Arabic word, it doesn't matter. It could be abaya, it could be kefa, it could be anything. You hear, okay, and you know, and we say we're going to ban it. You say, yes, that's true. We have. Immigration restrictions are no longer here. It's good to ban it. The problem is that it's a poisoned chalice. Because what does an aba mean? The law is normally clear. The law is unequivocal. What is prohibited, what is legal, what is illegal must be the same, must be understood in the same way by everyone. When I say that, for example, here it is forbidden by law to go over 100km h. Everyone knows what 100km h is and the instruments to measure it. No two people can have a doubt or disagreement about what 100 kilometers per hour means. It's objective, it's clear. It's clear. Here we say, uh, we ban an aba. What is an aba? But really, what is it in legal terms? How did you define it? There's no definition. Any long dress. Any long dress. Let's imagine a dress, from what I understand, a dress that goes like a shirt down to the wrist and down to the ankles. It's technically an abaya, if you like. So what do we do? How are we going to apply this law? The problem is that the legislature in France passes laws that are absolutely unenforceable and that just create division, discord, and don't even solve or even begin to solve the problems that they claim to be addressing. So what we're going to have, watch out for the scandals that are coming. We're going to have one day when they said it was forbidden in schools. Okay, we're going to see one day a woman walking into a town hall or a supermarket in a white dress. And I'm sure someone will say, yes, but that's forbidden, because people don't understand what is forbidden or in what area it is forbidden. Some people will think that it is forbidden on French territory. We've Already seen that. Another thing. Let's see. Let's go back to the area of the high school, for example, the area that is supposed to be targeted. How are we going to assess what an aba is or not? How are we really going to do it? For example, if a woman wears a long shirt like this and then wears a skirt that starts at the waist and goes to the ankles, is it an aba or not? Or does the baya have to consist of a single piece of fabric or a single item of clothing? Do you need two? Okay, how is it? A bow? I'm telling you, there's a scandal. What we're going to have is one day you have a blonde who arrives in a long dress. We let her through because her name is Julie or Caroline. And you have the black woman who arrives. You have the Arab woman who arrives in a dress that's exactly the same. You. No, that's an A bear. How is that in a bear? Because I have to include your race. I have to include your skin color. Right? I have to include your ethnic background. Right? Because I have to include your intention. That is to say, clothing in itself cannot legally define. So what are we going to do? We have to make a trial of intention. Yes, I know that one. Her name is Karima. She comes from a family with no brothers and she's Muslim. I've seen them with beards. So that one, what she's wearing falls under the definition of ab. It makes absolutely no sense, okay? It's not an applicable law. We just threw it out. And I'll tell you something. I understand the problem of ideological infiltration in schools, and believe me, I'm the first to deplore it. But there's not just Islamist infiltration. There's Islamist infiltration. There's Wakist infiltration that's causing mass destruction inside schools. And when I look at schools, okay, I look at the dissertations of schoolchildren from the 50s and 60s. I challenge people who are in university today to do the same thing. So schools are being destroyed not just by Islamist ideology, but by all ideologies. They have become the crossroads of all ideologies. It's high time, okay, it's high time today to clean up schools, to make schools sanctuaries. That means that, for example, in a country where there are ethnic divisions, religious divisions, where there are 50 nationalities per school, it is time in France today to impose a uniform, for example. That way it allows us to do something. Because what are we going to do? We are going to say, how are we going to manage between the ba and the thong. Okay, what are we going to require of the girls? We are going to see. We are going to have a rule, the. The climate rule at the entrance. We are going to say, well, you. You know what, my dear, you are almost naked there. You can't come in. So this one, we have to send her home. The other one, you are overdressed. Okay, so what are we going to say? We are going to say that a woman or a young girl who arrives at high school must have Obama. We are going to see 10 centimeters of thigh, but no more than 20, for example, A. So we're going to try to give empirical definitions like that to apply the law that makes absolutely no sense. My friends, this kind of law is not enforceable. We can't count on the people who created the problem to solve it. They're just going to add fuel to the fire. They're just going to create absurd and stupid laws that won't solve anything at all. First of all, I was talking about school uniforms. I'm in the uk. Maybe that's how I think, I don't know. But school uniforms, I assure you, solve a lot of problems. Secondly, ban all forms of ideology in schools. All forms, in all their forms. Ban on talking about religion, ban on talking about politics in schools. It's very simple, right? The Freemasons, they succeed, that's all. Ban all these things. School is for learning to read, learn to write, learn to count, learn to write an essay, learn to summarize a text, learn to do dictation, learn things like that. That's all. The rest is a tool that is given to you. You leave, you figure it out. We don't want. No one wants schools today where children leave with their hair dyed red or children leave hating their country, hating their ethnicity, hating their grandparents, wanting to tear down statues of great men they don't understand and can't even hold a candle to. We don't want schools where people come and go completely Islamized to the point of being swayed by identity markers or community markers and all that. School must be neutral. The sacred side of school is that it is neutral. This neutrality is lost today, and schools are becoming a factory of stupidity. I'm sorry to tell you, if you look at the level of society, I'm not looking at schools anymore. It's over because schools haven't played their role. Schools have been degraded for years. They've been a factory of stupidity for years. So we're going to find people in society who don't know how to reason. We're going to find people who have zero scientific culture. We're going to find people who confuse science and scientism. Right?

Okay.

Oh, yes, but that's scientific. Scientific. If we kill 100% of retirees, we'll solve the pension problem. Scientific. I can show you. When do we start? Now. When do we start?

Okay.

We have people who are completely dumbed down by school, who didn't do their job or who did it badly. And then they are dumbed down by the rest, by the media, who talk to them like kids. You know, I was a teenager at the time. You know what the Cold War was like? There was a level. There was a very good level, a level of analysis. Okay, it was hot. It was. We call it the Cold War, but it wasn't that cold. But in fact, it was played at a very high level. There was propaganda, counter propaganda, espionage, counter espionage. It was really played out. It was a game of chess. Today it's not even a game of checkers. Okay, what is being played out today? Look. Look at the level of analysis between the Cold War that pitted the Western bloc against the ussr, the Soviet bloc. Compare the level of the time. Read the books of the time, written by Soviet dissidents, written by intellectuals. No matter where they come from, from one camp or the other, there is a high level, a high degree of analysis.

Okay?

Today we have people who are into caricature. The Russians are bad, we are the good guys. That's it. That's all. There's nothing to say. They haven't understood anything. The Russians are currently remaking the world. There is a world that is being built with a West that doesn't even exist in the equation. The west is not even on the geostrategic map of the world that is being built today. And we have people who believe that the Russians, for example, are acting randomly, haphazardly. It's just like monkeys. They act, they shoot at random. They do everything at random. There you go. No, my friends. Wake up, wake up. Smell the coffee. Raise your spirits, please. Raise your spirits. And pull up your pants as you go. This is very serious. The situation is very tense, my friends.

Okay?

You know, I was recently reading a book called Panzer by Hein Guderian, one of the German generals of World War II. Reading the book doesn't mean that I approve of it or that I'm on their side. I'm not even on the side of today's Germans. So you can imagine the Germans of 39 or 45 even less. You know, German is very particular. But at the same time, there is a logic to these actions. There is intelligence, there is a plan, there is a vision.

Okay?

Right. It's like when France plays Argentina, the French team plays the Argentine team. Okay, I understand. I can understand that you support the French team. But when the French team prepares to play, they don't think that the Argentine team are just like monkeys scoring own goals, throwing the ball around, randomly falling to the ground and rolling around and everything. They analyze the opposing team's play. They understand the opposing team's logic, their strategy, their tactics, their way of seeing things. That's how they do it. If they think that the opposing team are just monkeys, well, they're going to end up dead. They're going to have a disillusion tomorrow. They're going to enter a world of pain. And today we've had such a simplification of public debate, we've had such a simplification of things that many people live to that degree, live with that instinct. Live with the instinct to believe that they, well, they are the alpha and the omega and that the rest of the planet are monkeys.

Okay?

We have to get rid of that instinct. We have to develop an awareness, an awareness of a complex world, of a world that has trends, that has intelligence, that has goals, objectives, values that are perhaps different from yours, but that have their own. Their own reason for being that are often very defensible.

Okay?

Anyway, my friends, this was just to talk about the basics, okay? But it's also an opportunity to talk about other things. You know, everything is connected to everything else, right? In school, they destroy our heads by telling us, oh, yes, you did. A gold subject. It's zero. Gold subject doesn't exist. There is no gold subject. Everything is connected to everything. Quote. Okay, thank you, my friends, for listening to this video so far, and I'll see you in the next one. Until then, take care. Mister.