L’Assemblée Nationale veut pénaliser l’islamophobie

Good evening, my friends. I'm making a video for you tonight from a hotel room. Last time I was in Amsterdam. This time I'm in Belgrade. I'm in Belgrade, Serbia. This isn't a. How should I put it? It's not a place that I visit regularly or anything, but it's the first time I've been here. I don't always choose where I go, but it's an interesting place. I'll tell you about it later. In any case, once I've finished this video, I'm going to go take a shower because I stink of cigarettes. I was in a restaurant. It's evening now, work is over. I went to a restaurant. And imagine that this is still a country where smoking is allowed in restaurants. So people smoke. They smoke a lot. It seems like cigarettes are free here. So this is, let's say, a paradise for passive smoking. Anyway, what did I want to tell you? I wanted to tell you something. I saw that the national assembly in France was discussing a law on hate on the Internet. So you have to know that this story of hatred actually makes no sense, okay? Hate speech doesn't actually exist. There are people who say true things, there are people who say false things. Now, everything that involves hatred, love and all that, it's something that comes from the inner self and the state has not legislated in this kind of thing. Uh, you have to understand that this story of hatred and love was born a long time ago. It was born in the 70s and 80s or from the thinking boards created in the United States to think about how to get around the First Amendment. Because you have to know that in the United States, the First Amendment is against the state. And this First Amendment completely restricts the ability of the American state to impose, let's say, censorship on the media and other things. And so this amendment is unavoidable. It's not easy to change the American Constitution. On the other hand, they have sought a way to circumvent it, so to block speech. So the first thing is that, first of all, who is it enforceable against? It is not enforceable against companies. It is enforceable against the state only. So, absolutely, we can transfer the role of censorship. We can transfer it from the state to companies.

Okay?

So it's companies like today, for example, we have social media or banks who do the same thing. Social media and banks censor by blocking accounts, by prohibiting certain people from accessing their services, they are de facto censoring, okay? But the First Amendment is not applicable to them, especially since with this Story of hatred. At the time, the people who came up with this, I had read articles written in the 80s, uh, at the time, they said to themselves, the advantage of this story of hatred, let's say we're going to define a statement as hateful, is that we don't really care if the statement is factual or not. We're not going to look at the facts behind the statement. Because up until that time, the facts were king. We were still in a West that was led, let's say, by a sort of scientific spirit or an emanation of it. But here it was a departure from that, from that doctrine, a complete change where the factuality of the statement doesn't interest us either. We won't even go into that. What will interest us is what we perceive as the intention behind it. And so we will judge on the intention. And if the intention is hateful, well, the statement falls under the scope of hatred, in fact, quite simply, and it allows us to avoid getting to the heart of the debate. So I would like to talk to you about something, just to tell you about the law that is going to be passed in France. It will condemn Islamophobia, among other things. So today the French Republic is going to take part in the religious debate and say that when it comes to Islam, it is only the word of the most extreme radicals, like those who are the masters on board in France, the Muslim Brotherhood, who are literally, as you can see, taking control of this country. How is that going to work? I will just give you an example so that you can understand. The SPLC in the United States, there a is. There is an association called the splc. The SPLC is an association. You have similar ones in France, because when tank in the 80s started talking about, let's say, thinking about hatred and all that, there were some amorous acts, you know, in the form of associations. And the SPLC is an extremely rich association, so rich that it even hides part of its income and all that in tax havens. And what did the SPLC do? The SPLC did the. The SPLC is an organization that fights against hate, racism and all that on the Internet. And what does it do? It is very important in the sense that many American media outlets, many American banks and others and American companies will outsource or subcontract everything related to hate to the splc. So if, for example, you have an organization that is listed as a hate organization or splc, well, the banks will close its accounts, social media will block it, advertisers will refuse to work with it. And in fact, you are like an outcast. So it is true that you still have the American First Amendment which allows you to speak, but who do you talk to? Right? You get in a box at an intersection and you talk. Everything else becomes de facto forbidden. Okay, so the SPLC has attacked an organization. The organization is called Kaleum. The Kaleem association is run by a guy named Sharif Nawaz who was already a Muslim and who was very close to terrorist groups. He was imprisoned in Egypt in 2006. He is of Pakistani origin, he was born in England. And in fact, he was close to an association, or rather a terrorist organization, extremely close to what is called da. In fact, you have to look at their flag. The association he was active in, it has the same flag as days. The white profession of faith on a black background. And its goal is to bring back the world caliph through jihad.

Okay?

A guy, a real terrorist. In fact, imagine that this terrorist, after a while he repents, he faces justice, all that, and he decides to create an association and to provide a counter narrative to the discourse that influences terrorist groups.

Okay?

That's his goal. He didn't leave Islam. He's still a Muslim, but he defined himself as a reformist Muslim. So he wanted to create a counter narrative to the narrative that he and people like him had brought to the voices of terrorism. Imagine that the SPLC classified him as an Islamophobic hate organization. That's the story.

Okay?

So for years his organization was completely stifled because he couldn't have a PayPal account, couldn't have a credit card, couldn't buy a single page ad in a newspaper. He was considered an outcast. Why? Because he was on the SPLC's blacklist.

Okay?

Because for leftists, you have to understand one thing. For leftists, when the guy was in a terrorist group, he had never been classified as a hate organization. On the other hand, when he started to fight against this discourse, he was classified as a hateful person. So for leftist associations, it is important to understand that any discourse that comes from the most extreme Islamic radicalism is considered Islamophobic. And so the guy, he is still a quick one in this case because the guy managed to take them to court and they ended up apologizing. So they published a text in which they apologized. Their president made a video, he apologized, and they gave him $3.3 million in damages and interest for the damages they caused. Now, this is just one case that I am showing you which is really a rapist. But basically, if the French law passes, it will define a crime of Islamophobia, but it will leave it to the Islamists, to the leftist organizations that are extremely close to the Islamists. It will leave it to them to designate what is Islamophobic and what is not so de facto. In fact, the French Republic is going to take part in the religious debate, which is not its role. But at the same time, it is also going to say this discourse is acceptable, this discourse is not acceptable. And we are going to find discourses from jihadists that will be considered as love, and discourses from people who come to oppose them that will be considered as hatred, and therefore they will be banned. There you have it. For me, it is a catastrophe. Of course, I am very worried about this, about this drift, and I have the impression that France is digging its own grave. Because somewhere, the more the country sinks into chaos, into migratory chaos, into religious chaos, with Islam becoming practically the news for every French person, it is literally as if we were in the Maghreb. The more people react, of course, and in a legitimate way. There are always reactions on the right, of course, but the French react, I think, in a much more measured way than if we in Algeria, for example, had in a similar or symmetrical way, we had been invaded by the French, for example.

Okay?

So the more people react, the more the system does. It will want to stifle the reaction, it will want to stifle the resistance. And I mean, I don't want to have a Godwin point, but it's practically as if in 43 we had voted in the crime of germanophobia. I mean, that doesn't make sense at all, right? There are societal phenomena, there are societal upheavals that are happening, among other things. One of the issues is that Islam, which, it must be said, does not necessarily have positive contributions to societies, generally speaking, Islamized societies are unstable societies, societies where there is no violence, no exclusion, no antisemitism, no problems with women, with female genital mutilation, violence, social retardation, and practically, it is undeniable. We find this in Algeria, we find it in Tunisia, in Libya, and then we can go as far as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and we will always find it associated with Islam.

Okay?

And that is a fact. But the problem is that today, as I told you at the beginning of the video, we are more interested in the fact. We are interested in the intention behind the fact that you have observed the fact. Right? You see something. But we're going to say, okay, I'm not interested in why this or that thing, huh? There are a lot of leftists who say, I don't know anything about Islam and I hate Islamophobes. And if you try to talk to them, they'll say, no, I don't want to, I don't want to know anything. I hate Islamophobes, that's all. I don't accept Islamophobic discourse. Whether they're right or wrong, I don't care. I don't even want to know. And I know nothing about Islam. But at the same time, these are extremely narrow minded positions until one day they end up with conversion or the coffin, huh? It will be the suitcase or the coffin, okay? Either conversion or the coffin. There won't be, uh, I mean, that's where it's going. And that's precisely what we're looking for in sin with our criticism when, you know, despite catalogs of far right groups sometimes and all that. I'm not close to the far right, by the way. Look at which far right group I'm close to. Who? Really? Who? No one, really. Look at who's reposting my videos. No one reposts my videos, okay? I'm nobody's friend, actually, okay? I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm an independent. I'm free and I share and I have an audience that listens to me, that's all. But I'm nobody's friend really on the political spectrum, if you will. But regarding my beliefs about religion, I'm probably on the left. But the pure left, the real one, not the caviar left, not the left that's sold out to the bosses. I mean, I'm, I'm, I'm on the left that considers religion to be a prison. A prison, okay? Uh, if you're in the, if you define yourself by religion, you're under the rule of that one. Even if you don't even know it, even if you don't believe it. But that's how I see you. I see you as someone who's been chained up, right? And there are people who take advantage of your slavery. They've chained you up, they've put chains on you and they take advantage of it, okay? That's. Without them, you're their real master, you see, you're just a slave who repeats what he's been told to repeat. That's all. Anyway, that's it. I just wanted to share this with you and I'll come back when I can. See you soon.