Islam’s gynophobia and inferiorisation of women, as well as the violence its women suffer, do not, properly speaking, come from the Mohammedan religion itself, but from an atavistic mentality of the populations that created Islam and among which Islam has been implanted; Islam has only strengthened these well-established practices. Arabs, Sub-Saharan Africans, Anatolians, Indonesians, and so on, seem to carry within themselves this gynophobia and brutal and macho conception of sexuality and relations between the sexes, so it is normal for Islam to have expressed in its teachings this probably innate tendency. Every religion and every cultural expression is the product of a genetic atavism. It is the root which creates and supports the tree, and not the other way around.
The European populations converted to Islam (for example, the Bosniaks) do not display such violence toward women. The closer one gets to the Nordic, Germanic, and Celtic area of civilisation, the more well-considered women are. Conversely, the farther one goes toward the Mediterranean, Oriental, Asiatic, and African areas, the more they are devalued and mistreated. This general pattern (which, like all rules, can support some exceptions) is a strong tendency which it is difficult for bien pensant sociologists to refute.[8] We can surmise that the neurotic gynophobia of Islam is the expression of behaviour which predates Islam itself.
A contrario, Christianity (which from its Middle Eastern origin) was also long a vehicle for the inferiorisation of women (on this subject, see the ravings of St Paul and the Church Fathers, including St Augustine, who was not European), but the European mentality gradually got the upper hand and gradually gave equal legal status to women.
Islam is misogynistic and gynophobic in the etymological sense: misogynist in that it tends toward the submission and mistreatment of women, gynophobic in that it displays a fear of women. A woman equal to man would threaten to humiliate him.[9]
* * *
With how much tolerance, how much benevolence is the fate of women and ‘arranged marriages’ in the third world, especially in the Muslim world, discussed, analyzed, and commented upon! Televised reports and articles in the press regard these customs with an obsequious respect. For the ancestral customs of other peoples are admired in the same proportion as our own are lampooned and ignored; ethnomasochism entails it.
Those who speak as our moral conscience, who mount their feminist horses to demand parity in Europe in all things, describe sympathetically or with a mild, amused condemnation, but no more, all these practices which reduce women to objects, consider them cattle, in many parts of Mali, Nigeria, Turkish Anatolia, Pakistan, Central Asia, the Sudan, Yemen, and so on.
Forced marriages, full-body veiling, domestic sequestration, tyrannical domination by the husband, prevalence of boys over girls, stonings, torture or murder in cases of suspected adultery or bad behaviour, lower legal status, varied forms of mistreatment at the hands of husbands and their families, forced labour, even sexual mutilation in Africa: these are some of the ‘cultural traits’ that our Left-wing feminists refuse to condemn and end by implicitly accepting (because they come from ‘persons of colour’), while they would shudder with horror if such things were practiced by a Western family.
Even international courts do not seem shocked by the official inferiority in the status and fate of women in the majority of Muslim countries, although these countries have signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Paedophiles are hunted down amid media uproar, but who cares about the little girls being mutilated in the suburbs of France under the most repugnant conditions? Who cares about the girls who are cloistered and put under surveillance in our cities, increasingly constrained to dress in black full-body veils, or indeed, in Afghan Burqas?[10] Apart from the association Neither Whores Nor Submissive, whose effectiveness is precisely zero, and whose only accomplishment was getting its president Fadela Amara appointed to the rank of State Minister (an incompetent one) by Mr Sarkozy, who protests? Who protests at the sight of these pregnant black women who have come from Africa in the name of family reunification so that the chief of their clan can subsist on government hand-outs, along with several wives and a plethora of children? Who dares to say that the recent rise in the number of women murdered, the violence and rape that they suffer — something absolutely new in France — are found mainly in neighbourhoods where Muslims live? Who brings up the native French working-class girls in our cities, forced to convert to Islam, wear the veil, even marry a Muslim and submit, body and soul, in order to obtain a minimum of security? Or be forced to become the girlfriend of a North African ‘protector’ in order to avoid (although not always!) gang rapes and daily harassment and humiliation. All this in the land of their ancestors!
The Rachida Dati syndrome — named for the daughter of a North African labourer propelled into the office of Minister of Justice by a besotted Sarkozy eager to pass off as even more anti-racist than the Socialists — is the tiny tree that hides a growing forest: in France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain — the countries that have felt the full brunt of mass Muslim immigration — the everyday conditions under which women live are deteriorating: not among the middle class, not yet, but among ordinary people.
It is impossible today for a young woman to walk in certain neighbourhoods without being disturbed or harassed, and these ‘no-go’ areas are becoming increasingly numerous. Not to speak of going to public swimming pools or discotheques. Only rich girls can do so, in expensive and protected establishments. In secondary schools, once a certain proportion of ‘young persons of African immigrant background’ has been reached, girls’ lives deteriorate. Examples multiply, and it is not laws on ‘parity’ which improve the lot of women. Comic opera sociologists, usually from the National Center for Scientific Research, take absolutely no account of these phenomena because they despise news reports and on-site observation, and because their bien pensant dogmas forbid them from taking account of reality.
I shall make a prediction: if immigration of Muslims, particularly Black African and North African, continues in Western Europe at its current rate, an arithmetical demographic projection indicates that Islam will gradually become the majority in the course of the twenty-first century.[11]
The whole of bien pensant, Leftist, feminist, ‘republican’, ‘human-rights-ist’ public opinion, which defends this unrestricted immigration in the name of anti-racism, is going to find itself faced with a stupefying situation. De facto oppression and undervaluing of women is going to become irreversible. The present generation of young Black and North Africans, huge and constantly growing, is going to impose macho behaviour and the requirement that women submit to men. It will be exactly the same with the Jews, who will also have to submit (as I explained in my book The New Jewish Question[12]).
I am constantly told that I am frightfully pessimistic, that I have no faith in ‘integration’, that I see catastrophe as the most probably outcome of the way things are going, that everything looks black to me, that I am playing Cassandra, that I reject hope. This is entirely accurate, and I think that my opinion is correct. I have never believed that chaff could be transformed into wheat, nor that a leaking pipe would not provoke a flood.
* * *
That a Tariq Ramadan, an Islamist agent close to the Muslim Brotherhood, master of hypocrisy, and Swiss citizen (on paper) should be permitted with impunity to state that he is in favour of a ‘moratorium on the stoning of adulterous women’ rather than rejecting this barbarous practice, condemning it in principle, tells you a lot about the cowardice of the French media, who were not really disturbed by this provocative declaration.
But in the face of all this evidence, feminist milieus (whether consisting of women or men) remain remarkably discreet. A traditionalist Catholic spanks his daughter or says that women belong in the home, and it is considered an abomination. On the other hand, we have radio silence concerning the landscape that is quickly being delineated before our astou
nded and incredulous eyes.
What is explosive is the clash between the sexualisation of society, persistent and getting worse, and a rise in neo-puritanism and misogyny of Islamic origin. The mixture of these two will contain some surprises.
We should not doubt for one instant that if Islam continues, over the course of the twenty-first century, to implant itself in Europe at its current pace, the equality between men and women will become a contested point again, at first gradually, then massively. The famous ‘sexual freedom’ will meet the same fate. The comfortable position homosexuals hope to enjoy will be nothing more than a memory, and all these progressives, Leftists and birdbrain adepts of the multicultural and multiracial utopia, of peaceful secularism, will be left with nothing but their eyes to cry with. They will awaken in a society very different from that of their dreams.
[1] The reason for these contradictions between surahs and verses is that the Qur’an, like the Bible, is a text combined from different sources. As a disciple of Aristotle and Voltaire, I obviously do not believe that Muhammad miraculously received it all at once by divine inspiration. In today’s pseudo-secular France, however — which frightened of Islamisation — to express the idea that the Qur’an is a composite text with nothing divine about it leaves one open to prosecution. This being said, the Qur’an, a purely human work whose surahs come from different sources, is a unified and particularly effective work on the poetic and rhetorical level — perhaps superior to the Bible in this respect — because it presents itself as a code and a synthetic explanation of the world. The inconvenience is that the Qur’anic teaching, by its absolute dogmatism, is an extinguisher of the mind and spirit.
[2] In the fourth surah, on women (34–38), one can read in the relatively faithful translation of Muhammad Hamidullah: ‘34. Men have authority over women because of the favours Allah accords the former over the latter, and also because of the expenses they undergo. Virtuous women are obedient [to their husbands], and protect what is to be protected during their husband’s absence, with the protection of Allah. And as for those from whom you fear disobedience, exhort them, keep away from them in their beds and strike them. If they succeed in obeying you, seek no more way of proceeding against them, for Allah is certain, High and Great!’
[3] Culture is the basis of religions and not the other way around, even if religion (or ideology) retroactively effects culture. Islam is the product of a pre-existing mentality.
[4] Anne-Marie Delcambre, La schizophrénie de l’islam (Desclée de Brouwer, 2006).
[5] Tariq Ramadan is a Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies in the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Oxford University, who advocates the re-interpretation of Islamic texts and emphasises the heterogeneity of Western Muslims. –Ed.
[6] The Qur’anic verses which exhort to the mistreatment of disobedient and unsubmissive women, learnt by heart by adolescents in madrasas, necessarily impacts on their behaviour.
[7] Between 2004 and 2008, complaints of conjugal violence increased by 30 percent. In Seine-Saint-Denis (where there is already a Muslim majority), 30 percent of girls between the ages of 18 and 21 have suffered physical violence in the last twelve months, including 5 percent sexual violence. Such a situation is totally unknown in départements with low immigration. Bowing its head before Islam, a court in Lille declared (in violation of the laws of the Republic) a marriage void due to fraud because the wife was not a virgin. Never mind the increase in the number of women compelled to wear the veil. According to the movement The Insubmissive Ones [Islam means ‘submission’ in Arabic. –Tr.], the virginity of girls before marriage is tending to become the rule in the suburbs. The government’s High Commission on integration tells us (demonstrating its own failure) that 35,000 girls are sexually mutilated each year in France, and that 70,000 young women are forcibly married.
Another example of the combination of machismo and submission in Islam: in August of 2007, an Italian appeals court confirmed the acquittal of a Muslim who had beaten his daughter bloody because she ‘lived according to Western ways’! This strange lenience of judges toward those who violently attack women is also found in Germany, where courts have disclaimed jurisdiction, in the name of respecting ‘cultural diversity’, in cases where Turkish men had violently assaulted their daughters! In France, the law of 4 April 2006 strengthened the repression of violence in intimate relations, providing for life sentences for the murder of one’s partner and 20 years for violence which resulted in death. But in practice, sentences never exceed 8 years. With remission of sentence, this becomes four years.
[8] Sociology is willfully dishonest about demographic immigration and the presence of Islam, especially in its prohibition against collecting ethnic statistics and its downplaying of illegal immigration.
[9] The school performance and professional ascention of young women is much higher than that of young men in North African and Black African immigrant milieus.
[10] At the end of 2010, the Police Department estimated at slightly more than 2000 the number of women in the Paris region who veiled themselves completely, including their faces.
[11] Two Americans recently wrote books which have received a lot of attention and which foresee a conquering Islamisation of Europe over the course of the first half of the twenty-first century. The first, Faith and Power: Religion and Politics in the Middle East, by Bernard Lewis, an Islamologist and Professor at the University of Princeton; the second, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, by the journalist Christopher Caldwell, appeared in France under the title Comment l’Islam va transformer la France et l’Europe [How Islam is Going to Transform France and Europe –Tr.], with a preface by the demographer Michèle Tribalat (published by du Toucan), arrive at the same conclusions advanced in my (condemned) book The Colonisation of Europe. [Following publication of this book in 2000, both Mr Faye and his publisher L’Æncre were found guilty of ‘inciting racial hatred’ by a Paris court and fined accordingly. –Tr.]
[12] Faye, Guillaume, La Nouvelle question juive (La diffusion du Lore, 2007).
Chapter 10
Christianity and Sex
In a similar but distinct way from Islam, Christianity maintains a relatively pathological, powerfully rigid relationship to sex and women. This attitude, originally imported from the East, runs contrary to the traditions of Europe and pre-Christian European culture. In St Augustine, as in many Church Fathers, the hatred of women reaches its summit, almost as high as in the Qur’an, as the historian André Lama has shown in his study Propos Mécréants.[1]
The sexual morality of Christianity, however, has never been able to impose itself on European mentalities, whether in its Catholic form or its various Protestant Puritan forms. The collision between an imposed morality and an inherited and atavistic vision of the world has created serious disturbances in collective psychology and led to a series of crises that have marked the history of the Christian churches. For example, the contradiction between courtly love and Catholic conjugal morality, or the impossibility of imposing respect for chastity or even for celibacy[2] on the clergy — a problem which has only grown within Catholicism through the centuries up to the present. Beginning with the Italian Renaissance, and then the French, the frontal opposition between a rigid biblical tradition and artists (painters, sculptors, poets) who displayed nudes and took up again the whole of pagan Greco-Roman mythology, pasting it onto Sacred History in a strange synthesis. This was one cause among others of the Protestant schism.[3] The higher clergy was divided into two camps on the subject: those who supported the artists and those who condemned them. Beginning in the seventeenth century, the Church had to confront the libertine ideology even within its own ranks, not to speak of the constant clash in the royal courts of Europe between sexual and conjugal practices and the commandments of the Church.[4] Things
only got worse from the eighteenth century onwards with the introduction of divorce; the eruption of increasingly explicit eroticism in the arts, literature, and ideology; the gradual loss of the Church’s control over sexual morality — all of this ending up in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, in which the Church is hand-in-glove with the sexuality practiced in society as well as within its own ranks: a subject which shall be taken up below.
The Canonical Sexual Morality of the Church
The official canonical and catechetical sexual morality of the Church (which was not abolished by Vatican II but merely deemphasised) contains both positive precepts in accord with natural right and the social order, and others which are in contradiction with human ethology.
The first fundamental dogma, from which many rules derive, is that chastity is by nature preferable to sexuality, as imitating the Holy Family: Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. It is a theological preference, but it still poses both practical problems (is not the reproduction of the species better than infertile sterility?)[5] and also theological problems: it is still God who created the reproductive organs and their biological mechanisms such as the libidinal drive and the orgasm; was this done, then, so we might not make use of them? To tempt us and put us to the test? Did God create evil in the form of sexual pleasure?
Sex and Deviance Page 32