French Court Rules that French People are Not Native to France (But Muslims Could Be)

In another episode of suicidal thinking, a French Criminal Court has ruled that there is no such a concept as a “Native” Frenchman and therefore their culture, heritage, and history are exempt from protection under the law.


Muslim Sociologist Said Bouamama. Note the style of scarf draped around his neck (snapshot from his French-language video, Advice to New Activists)

The court case began as an anti-discrimination lawsuit filed by the General Alliance against Racism and for the Respect of French and Christian Identity following the publishing of a book entitled F*ck France (which you can see a copy of here of Amazon France) by Muslim sociologist Said Bouamama  and rapper Saidou (known as Z.E.P.). Among the claims made were that under French law, this book propagated racism and discrimination against native white French persons. There was also a video with same title made by the same rapper, which you can view below from Youtube:


The Agence France-Presse originally had an article about this but has henceforth deleted it from their website. Fortunately, the report is still available (translation courtesy of Google Translate). Via Le Figaro:

The rapper Saïdou and sociologist Said Bouamama were prosecuted for “public insult racially motivated” by the General Alliance against Racism and for the Respect of the French and Christian Identity (Agrif), which intends to fight against the “anti-French racism” . In its decision, the court held that the concept of “native French called white” no results “group of persons” under the law, according to the decision by the AFP had access.

In its decision, the court resumes Me Braun reasoning and believes that this concept, “for it may seem commonplace,” “does not cover any legal reality, historical, biological and sociological,” and “the” whiteness “or the “white race” “is” in no way a legal component of the quality of French. He concluded that “the French called white strain is not a” group of persons “” under the 1881 Act on freedom of the press, which governs freedom of expression. An “unbelievable decision” for Agrif, who immediately appealed.“Today the white race, finally the white color is not protectable at all,” said the spokesman, who fears “a very perverse jurisprudence” on this issue.

This case is very concerning because it is a “canary in the coal mine” for the future of French society, and by that I mean the native French.

It is well-established through international treaties via the UN, most particularly the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, that “native” people, regardless of the land they live in, have a right to preserve, protect, and propagate their culture within their native homeland and to enact laws that in fact discriminate against outside influence. The reason for this is good and clear- because if too much outside influence were to come into a culture, it would fundamentally change that culture to a point that it would cease to exist in its current form and would become something else. This idea is indeed true diversity, since it respects the rights of other cultures to live as they please while at the same time asserting their own right to establish healthy, normal boundaries in which they can assert their culture and identity among people of their same group.

France was originally inhabited by a people known to the Romans as the Gauls. Around the 3rd century, Germanic tribes migraned to an mixed with the Gallic people, forming the Franks. It is from these same Franks that the modern French people are descended. While there have been many wars throughout the last 1500 to 1800 years, the boundaries in which the Franks mixed with the Gauls, established their kingdoms, built their culture, lived and raised families has remained nearly the same since this time. If that is not “native” enough to a particular place, I do not know what else to say.

Today, France is at a crossroads. It has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world among native French, while at the same time it continues to import an ever-increasing number of Muslim “immigrants.” Approximately 10%, or 6 million people, are Muslim in France, with most of them descendants of “immigrants” that began arriving after World War II and continuing since.

This court “ruling” is not about “equality” at all. It is the government’s justification for its suicide and into which they want to drag as many of the native French as they can on their way to their own death. This is the highest form of treachery, as Cicero once noted:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

The socialists love the Muslim third world so much they have pledged to make France, a nation with a rich history, into part of the Muslim third world.

France has one of two choices now. It can return to God and the Faith and, having done this, fight for true freedom once again in the spirit of her Crusader ancestors, or she can go quietly into the grave of great civilizations and give her heritage, once so blessed and esteemed by God, to the hands of Muhammadan heretics who will mercilessly trample it into the dust.