When fear rules everything (Plon)
In this incisive book, Carine Azzopardi provides a whole series of information, always referenced, on the convergences between "radical" Islamism and Wokeism, a convergence that has not always been noticed by authors who write about one or the other of these ideological intrusions into contemporary thought. And yet, what interference! What collusion between the will of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose objectives to Islamize Western societies as much as possible are clearly recalled, and the soft and soothing thought of our wokies whose desire not to hurt anyone becomes aggressive when it comes to denouncing and humiliating those who do not think like them... Added to this ideological connivance is the mad desire of a party leader, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, to become the majority in France by fishing for votes in the troubled waters of Islamism and denying his past convictions.
Carine Azzopardi does not spare us any reminders, and that is fortunate: her job as a journalist allows us to find the first denunciation of American wokeness, not in the outrageous remarks of a DeSantis, but in a fine analysis of Barack Obama. She reminds us of Mélenchon's commitments in favor of secularism, of universalism. She reminds us of the sickening remarks of Edwy Plenel, after the attacks of January 2015, who exonerated Islamism from the production of terrorists, for whom he held responsible "the fractures of our society" (but who is the fracture, if not Islamism? We are playing on words...). She also reminds us of the incredible title of New York Times after the beheading of Samuel Paty in broad daylight, in the middle of the street: always keen to denounce "police violence", these good souls denounced the police officers who shot the assassin and not the latter's abominable crime.
Another strong point of the book is the highlighting of recurring contradictions: the abaya is one day a Muslim garment, another day a banal traditional garment, depending on what suits the interlocutor. Forgetting, perhaps unintentional (?), marks many statements by these "anti-racists" who convey (without knowing it?) another form of racism. Carine Azzopardi's meticulous work in combing through the media brings all these oversights to the surface: forgetting the victims of the FIS and the GIA during Algeria's dark decade, forgetting the attacks of September 11 when analyzing the attacks of November 13, to stick to these two examples. A very important remark: American academics have been led to lose interest in analyzing the jihadist phenomenon, and it is journalists who have taken over... The university has abdicated its fundamental mission of producing knowledge.
Fear rules everything… Fear of finding yourself in the camp of racists when you dare to challenge the very notion of “white supremacy”, fear of losing your job when you don’t agree, fear of being classified in the infamous category of fascists, fear of being blackmailed by “Islamophobia”, fear, much more pressing, of being the target of these fools of their god. From wokeism to Islamism, there is only one step. Chapter after chapter, Carine Azzopardi reminds us that we live in fear. This book comes at just the right time, at the time of a new cold-blooded assassination in broad daylight, at the time when the terrorism of radical Islamists in Gaza is atrociously traumatizing Israelis as well as the silent majority of Palestinians. Yes, fear rules everything, in the Middle East as in France. And we always find the same people at the forefront of supporters of terrorism, putting executioners and victims side by side...
Why read Carine Azzopardi's book? Because you will find many things that you did not know - or that you have forgotten! From this journey to the heart of hatred, one does not come out unscathed...
The good leaves
On the convergence between promoters of gender identity and communitarianism
The reasoning of the "popess" of gender theory, which opens the door to infinite gender identities, then turns into a critique of universalist feminism, which would only be "white". Judith Butler takes the Western logos as the sole and unique person responsible for gender oppression. And this conceptual presupposition leads her into a real impasse. In her book Precarious Life, she explains that it is a white Western prejudice to consider that a woman in Afghanistan who wears the burqa must take it off. If she wears it, it is a sign of modesty. "As if," protests Sabine Prokhoris, "the women themselves there did not want to escape this patriarchal oppression and that if they took off their burqa, they were complicit in the white Western prejudice. Basically, if we think that they have the right, Judith Butler tells us that we are for George Bush." Judith Butler thus takes up the hackneyed Foucauldian refrain "Islam does not have the same regime of truth as we do" to practice a complete relativism. We thus understand better how so many neo-feminists brought up on gender theory envisage the Iranian revolt that has been taking place since 2022, or rather do not want to envisage it.
"Behind the smokescreen of Butler's theory on 'gender', writes Séverine Denieul, and despite the many oratorical precautions that pepper her speech, one cannot help but see an ideological posture of the communitarian type. This theory actually hides a pure and hard communitarianism." From her deduction of the imposition of gender by the "white Western logos", the American philosopher in fact deduces the existence of gender minorities, and the need for an alliance of minorities in general, whose common point is to be all oppressed by "white imperialism". The convergence will be made in particular between "Muslims" and LGBT. Except that at a certain stage gender theory will come up against the wall of reality and logic.
On the convergence between the US movement against police violence and anti-Semitism
When the Black Lives Matter movement emerged in 2013, many American Jews naturally took part in the protests, having a long tradition of closeness to the civic struggles of the 1960s. When the movement's British website accused Israel of "genocide", Jewish associations in the United Kingdom nevertheless expressed their "dismay". In March 2017, anti-Semitic flyers were scattered all over the Illinois campus in Chicago. Their content: a call for an end to "Jewish privilege", because "ending white privilege," the flyer explains, "first means ending Jewish privilege". A pyramid diagram is illustrated with a few figures, including this one: "44% of American Jews are in the top 1% of the richest." Conspiratorial figures, completely unrelated to reality. Similar flyers are being distributed at the University of Colorado in Denver, the University of Kansas, Northridge University in California, as well as Cape Canaveral in Florida, and even the prestigious Princeton University, as reported by the ADL (Anti-Defamation League), an American NGO fighting racism and anti-Semitism. Finally, another document circulated online in the summer of 2020, postulating: “The end of white privilege is at the intersection [sic] with the end of Jewish privilege.”
On Sunday, July 12, 2020, a campaign spread on Twitter under the hashtag #jewishprivilege. Launched by bots from the American far right, it was relayed by accounts that claimed to be progressive. By Monday afternoon, more than one hundred and twenty-two thousand messages using it were counted on Twitter. Writer Hen Mazzig notes that white supremacist messages “spread anti-Semitic conspiracies about Jews being ‘privileged’—that [they] control the media, the banks, and the world.” According to him, “progressive users quickly joined the same conversation but promoted a different idea—‘that Jews face no discrimination’ and, at the same time, ‘are responsible for the discrimination and other ills that many minorities face.’” He then pushed the Jewish community to take up the hashtag and hijack it. Many Jewish figures will tweet their “privilege” with a certain dark humor. “It is ironic that hatred of Jews is one of the few common points between the ‘woke left’ and the ‘alt-right’ [the ultra-right],” writes Aaron Weil, director of Hillel University in Florida.
In France, the same kind of campaign had been launched two months earlier on Twitter under the hashtag #sijetaisunjuif, before being removed by the platform for “violating society’s rules regarding hatred”. And the latest figures from the Ministry of the Interior remain worrying: in 2022, four hundred and thirty-six anti-Semitic acts were recorded. A relative drop since in 2021, five hundred and eighty-nine had been recorded. 73% of racist acts targeting people are directed against Jews, while they only constitute 1% of the total population. Physical violence has increased by 36% in one year. Comparatively, the Jewish community is by far the primary target.
The true-false podcast case of the New York Times
(…) The matter ended there. Until January 27, 2022… That day, the New York Times and the production company Serial put a podcast online that lasted more than six hours on the newspaper’s website as well as on various platforms such as Spotify or Apple. The show was conducted at a cracking pace, like a crime investigation series, to denounce an “Islamophobic plot” on the part of the British state. What happened, the show insists, had nothing to do with extremism: it was simply a problem of governance. Lively music punctuated the interviews and interventions of the two journalists who carried out the work. A well-executed interference operation…
The two investigators focused on one element, which they believe is false: an anonymous letter sent to Birmingham City Hall that triggered the whole affair. The letter describes precisely the goals to be achieved, including the installation of supervisory teams "in favor of the project." It is a letter that was allegedly sent by a member of the school community, who allegedly had it in his possession. But the various reports have never revealed the sender or the origin. For the New York Times, it is therefore proof of an Islamophobic plot. In a few days, the podcast will be relayed by influential accounts on social networks, such as that of the Council of Muslims of Great Britain, or those of anti-racist associations close to the Islamists MEND or CAGE. The woke social networks will then take over. (…)
Islamist feminism
In these many small books that guide the daily life of "believers", we will find essential recommendations such as: "Men have authority over women...", or "The woman must obey her husband absolutely except when this involves disobedience to Allah". In addition to the legitimization of marital rape, we will find in this type of literature that promotes the veil as a virtue, "the absolute prohibition of hitting the face" (but not the rest) by the husband, advice for enlightened polygamy, parental agreement for jihad... This book of recommendations for the rights of believers (bought at random, among others), nevertheless says "that burying girls alive is a great sin", and that parents will have "merit in raising a girl". "Hit them," advises the author, "but while remaining in accordance with decency and without violence, seeking to educate them because the goal is not to hurt them but to correct them in a non-distressing way. "This type of work is unfortunately not an exception. Anne-Laure Zwilling's studies have shown that these books from Salafist literature, mostly Saudi, are quantitatively present in a very impressive way in Islamic bookstores.
