Friday, 19 August 2016

French Lesson Number One

The hypocrisy of the French nation never ceases to amaze me.

I’ve touched on this phenomenon in the past, and I won’t repeat what I’ve said there, except to make this point: the British might be perfidious, and the Imperialist States of Amerikastan has both hypocrisy and perfidy in its DNA, but neither of them can hold a candle to la belle France.

Several years ago, I wrote an article on the French ban on the niqab, pointing out that it was an arrant piece of idiocy which would do nothing to “emancipate” French Muslim women but do everything to play into the hands of Muslim radicals...which is, of course, what happened. In fact so obvious was this that one can hardly avoid the conclusion that this is exactly what was intended all along, and that the entire idea was to create a racial and religious divide in order to exploit it politically.

Racial, did I say? Yes. France is probably the most institutionally racist nation – possibly the only institutionally racist nation – in the world today (since I do not recognise the existence of the Zionist apartheid colonial settler entity in Occupied Palestine, also known as the so-called state of “Israel”, I’m not considering it). This racism finds a convenient way of expressing itself in “secularism”, that is, by targeting the Muslim minority in the name of secularism. Since almost all French Muslims are brown-skinned people of Arab descent, and since almost all brown-skinned people of Arab descent in France are Muslims, this is a nice, convenient excuse.

And the French aren’t just racist against Muslims- they’re happy to blatantly racially discriminate against other brown people...Indian (non-Muslim) air passengers inadvertently stuck in an airport, for instance. And despite their alleged aversion to Islamic practices, they’re very, very happy to openly and aggressively back the worst jihadi cannibal headhunters they can find, so long as those jihadi cannibals target secular brown Arab societies. Remember who took the lead in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi in Libya? Who was it that openly and aggressively backed jihadis in Syria, to the extent of saying President Assad “should not be on this earth”?


Let’s take a look at the latest item of French hypocrisy – the ban on the “burkini” swimsuit. Now, there are a lot of things wrong with going in the sea covered in clothing except for one’s face, hands and feet – for one thing, it’s probably uncomfortable as hell, and, for another, it must be less than easy to get cleaned up afterwards. But that’s entirely the business of the person who’s wearing it, and nobody else’s. Certainly, it is as ludicrous to ban wearing it as it would be to compel women to go skinny dipping.

Also, there is no dispute that the burkini is legal even under the niqab-banning French law, since it does not conceal the face. As such, the French had to come up with peculiar justifications for it – such as the “maintenance of hygiene”. That’s especially rich seeing the number of overloaded boatloads of refugee corpses now rotting under the Mediterranean as a direct consequence of France’s leading role in the destruction of Libya and the partial destruction of Syria.

And here we come to the crux of this whole “burkini ban” thing. Obviously, women who will wear burkinis on the beach are women who won’t turn up in bikinis if the burkini is banned. Instead, they simply won’t go to the beach at all. And that means, in turn, that what this “ban” is aimed at is to cleanse the French beaches of brown-skinned women. I’ll go so far as to say that if Islam advocated that women go topless, the French would have banned bare breasts instead.

Not that only Muslims cover up on the beach, by the way. In fact, except for the Japanese, who have been so systematically Americanised over the last seventy years that their culture is endangered, I don’t know of many non-white people of any religion where the women feel comfortable in bikinis. If one steps on the beaches of India, for example, one will find women in everything from saris to salwar kameez to tank tops and shorts...but not bikinis. In fact, a minister in the government of the state of Goa (a state which is completely tourism dependant for its income) recently demanded a ban on bikinis, on the grounds of “immorality” and “cultural pollution”. Can one see the parallels to France? Fortunately, Goans are brighter and less hypocritical than the French, so the ban was never implemented.

That this ban is a gift to ISIS goes without saying; of course the Islamic radicals will, and correctly, see it as an attempt to squeeze the Muslim population of France even further into a corner. Is it just possible that the intention is to deliberately invite ISIS or other jihadi attacks, in order to extend the state of emergency which was allegedly declared to “fight terrorism”, but has come in handy to crush free speech and trade union protests?

Surely not! Surely I’m being too fanciful there!

Anyway, here’s a beginner’s lesson in the French language, for anyone who might be interested.

Knock yourselves out.


  1. I've been following this nonsense. Even the French Prime Minister recently said he supported the burkini ban since they represent the “enslavement of women”.

    Basically, he thinks burkinis are forced on women against their will.

    So he's going to force women to take them off against their will.

    Either way, women are being used by men as a political football. No terrorist act is going to be prevented by banning burkinis, but it does allow people to passive aggressively lash out against an unpopular group.

  2. There is also that small matter of testing one's nation's nuclear bombs in the Pacific where the nearest neighbours were mostly brown people. And although it is not relevant to this post, New Zealanders have not forgotten the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior here. But to get back to the swimming costumes. It has been my experience of Muslim families here that they try to fit in with our culture while not losing their own. Thus the little girls kept their scarves and long skirts but they were made up in uniform material. Compromise. The little girls participated in everything the other kids did except swimming because they were not allowed to show their bodies. I always thought they looked like they would love to jump into the water like the other kids but nobody had thought of a costume like the one above back then. So I think it is an excellent idea if it means the little girls and the women can join in with everyone else. I would like to see the costume made of fabrics like rash vests are made of, that should be safe enough in the water. It is worth remembering that there were some very silly costumes in England and France in Victorian times.

  3. I also have been following this. Nasreen makes excellent points. If a woman is wearing burqa swimwear out of choice she is punished. If she is wearing it because her family tells her to, she is punished. Intensely racist and sexist.

    I am thinking of the times when I have gone to the beach on cold days with sweatpants down to my ankles, and a baggy hooded sweatshirt. I suppose in France I would be fined.

    1. The law only bans burqinis in summer. In winter, French swimmers are allowed to wear as much as they want.

      And the burqini ban is more complicated that the newspaper articles.

      In Morocco, women wear skimpy bikinis, but you'll never see them. Every family buys or rents a huge tent, and the women can wear skimpy bikinis inside the family tent, since they can only be seen by their husbands/fathers/brothers. No one outside the family can see into the tent.

      Some Muslims put up such tents and demanded that all others keep out, blocking off part of the public beach.

      Solution, obvious: ban the burqini!



Full comment moderation is enabled on this site, which means that your comment will only be visible after the blog administrator (in other words, yours truly) approves it. The purpose of this is not to censor dissenting viewpoints; in fact, such viewpoints are welcome, though it may lead to challenges to provide sources and/or acerbic replies (I do not tolerate stupidity).

The purpose of this moderation is to eliminate spam, of which this blog attracts an inordinate amount. Spammers, be warned: it takes me less time to delete your garbage than it takes for you to post it.