Violent protests have shaken France in recent weeks. According to Elie Hatem, these are a reflection of a longer trend as well as result of intervention by foreign powers. Hatem explains the historic transformation that took place in French politics, society and culture during the last century.
Elie Hatem is Doctor of law, lawyer at the Paris Bar Association and before the International Criminal Court (The Hague), Vice President of the International Movement of Russophiles (MIR), Officer in the Order of the Cedar, Knight in the Order of Academic Palms Knight in the Order of the Star of Mohéli.
Massive protest not for the first time
It is not the first time we see this kind of protest in France. Is there any difference between the previous ones and today’s?
As you said, it’s not the first time that we face in France this popular movement -I would call it “popular movement”. We can mention the year 1968. General De Gaulle, the founder of the First Republic of France, had to travel inside France by a helicopter at that time because the riots and the protests were very strong.
In 2005 we had protests with similar goals coming from the same category of the population: the new French who have immigration backgrounds and have not been assimilated and integrated into France. They were put in ghettos, suburbs of the biggest cities lacking chance to have a job and to live nicely like the others. They had to do some illegal jobs like selling drugs, stealing, attacking people. Even the police are afraid to go into these areas.
Today 4th generation of this category of people live in France. In 2005 the same thing happened and then the government tried to calm the protesters. In 2007 happened the same. The issue is here that any smallest spark can start a big fire. This is what happened after a mistake by the police. The situation is an expression of a clash between two categories of French: the rich and the poor or the people who had/have the chance to be assimilated and didn’t/don’t.
What was Jean-Marie Le Pen telling?
As Jean-Marie Le Pen was telling 40 years ago, we have not to accuse that section of the population regarding what’s happening now. We have to accuse the policy of the French governments from the right and left wings who were under the pressure of some lobbies like Free Nations, the Zionists. Those lobbies were imposing a policy on French governments accompanied by propaganda, “if you do not accept the policy of opening the borders, you will be considered as racists, xenophobe and anti-Semitists”.
This campaign got people afraid of expressing their view of the future of France in the face of opening the borders to a huge number of populations coming from all over the world, not only from French-speaking countries, but also from other countries in Europe and the world.
US’s European policy after the World War II
We should also underline that the US was trying to destroy the identity of the states in the Western European countries since the end of the Second World War, firstly by the Marshall Plan and deploying NATO troops in European countries, and then by imposing policies through lobbies, NGO’s like Soros’. General De Gaulle decided to withdraw France from NATO’s military structure, perceiving American actions as a form of military and security occupation of Europe. Since then, American interference has continued unabated, aiming to weaken European countries and undermine their identities.
American-Zionist powers and massive immigration
Under the influence of American-Zionist powers, a massive immigration campaign to the European continent has occurred since the end of World War II. Regrettably, French and other European policies fell into the trap of adopting this migration policy. As a result, a significant number of immigrant populations settled in France, especially after the implementation of a law allowing family reunification. However, during the 1970s economic crisis, when France and Europe faced the oil shock, European nations lacked the means to accommodate this considerable immigrant influx and provide them with suitable living conditions.
During this time, Jean-Marie Le Pen founded the party “Le Front National” (which has now changed its name to “Le Rassemblement National”). He raised awareness among the public and successive French governments, both conservative and progressive, about the negative consequences of this migration phenomenon for France, its people, and other Western European countries. Unfortunately, these immigrant populations in France and other European nations found themselves unemployed and living in precarious conditions, often in the suburbs of major cities. Governments lacked the capacity and resources to provide them with employment opportunities and support, resulting in these populations being left in “ghettos,” abandoned to fend for them. As a means of survival, they resorted to delinquent acts, such as drug trafficking, theft, burglaries, and armed attacks.
Salafism since the early 2000s
This situation has also contributed to a significant portion of this population category being influenced by the wave of Salafism since the early 2000s. Likewise, a segment of native-born French citizens has been swayed towards this Salafist-Takfiri movement, which bears no resemblance to Islam, just as political Judaism has no connection to Judaism. As a result, a conflation has been made between Islam and this specific population category of French immigrants, particularly considering that a large portion of this population hails from Algeria, which has a complex history with France during its decolonization.
You said the “US was trying to destroy the identity of the states in the Western European countries”. Can you elaborate on it?
The French identity is not any more “French” since many years. If you ask a French “who are you” he or she will not say ‘I am French’. France was the Catholic state of Europe, but it was destroyed with the secular model. The French do not feel themselves belonging to the original French identity. So how can you ask those newcomers to be French, while the French themselves are not anymore feeling that they have an identity? France had already lost total its identity, especially since 1968.
The turning point: 1968
What is the importance of 1968?
In 1968, there was the famous clash of the young, the new generation, the baby boom generation, drugs, sex, and hippies.
Until the 30s, the “good ladies”, I mean ladies belonging to the high society, never used to cut their hair short. Or you would never see a lady wearing pants. Things have totally changed after 1968.
The year 1968 changed the mentalities a lot in France. For example before that time, most of the ladies were going to the Church with the veil. Now you cannot see any lady going to church. Maybe 0.001%. If someone wears a veil, people say “She must be coming from Saudi Arabia or from Iran”. Since 1968, you can’t find any priest in the streets and if you find one in a very village this would be like a miracle. Christians have more freedom in Türkiye than in France. Now the churches are empty and like temples.
And you remember there were many attacks against the Catholic Church like “the priests are pedophiles”, movies depicting Christ as in love with Mary or homosexual.
In France, there is now also a fight against Muslims because they are so afraid that Muslim people will push the Catholic Christians to come back to their traditions. And they will harm the Free Nations and the political Judaism. Here note that I am not exclusively referring to a faith, but also a culture.
Some may argue the changes with 1968 were for freedom. However in fact they destroyed the families and the real French culture. Today individuals became like robots, they are only running after money.
Denying origin and culture
According to research in 2021 first time in French history rate of non-believers exceeded that of believers.
Yes. And it’s becoming not only about believing. You can believe in God or not. The question is that they deny their origin and their culture. In Türkiye, the majority of the population is Sunni Muslim. That is part of Türkiye’s identity. Even if some part of the population doesn’t believe in God, they don’t deny their belonging to a basic civilization, which is a Muslim civilization with the Sultan who used to be the Khalifa of Islam. After the revolution of Mustafa Kemal, society went through certain changes, yet Türkiye doesn’t deny its past, history. In France, unfortunately, it is the opposite.
Marine Le Pen and the generations after 1968
Marine Le Pen, in her debate with Emmanuel Macron before the presidential election in April 2022, stated the basic foundation of the Republic and Revolution could be a response to the kind of problems now you are addressing. She was talking about a comprehensive identity, “the citizens of the Republic”. What do you think about this?
Marine Le Pen was born in 1967. Unfortunately, she belongs to the generation after 1968 that believes in a new society with secularism. There is no room in it for the French identity and Catholicism.
Secularity is the separation of the church and the state. This happened in many other states as well. In France it turned about to be a struggle against the religions, especially against the Catholic religion, because the kings and the majority of the aristocracy, the majority of the aristocracy and 90% of the population were Catholic. Political Judaism gave birth to Zionism that destroyed this society. The symbol of the French Republic, freedom-equality-fraternity, was created by Free Nations. These are also the symbol of the Free Nations.
When Marine Le Pen says this, I can agree with her if only secularity gives the right to all people to believe or not to believe. Secularism should not impose a kind of dictatorship. England is totally different. In England you can find even policewomen wearing veil.
I will give you a comparison between France and Russia. Russia was under communism for over 70 years and communism imposed atheism, which was much harder than the secularism in France. Just after communism, Russia recovered its identity. I don’t mean that all of the people are going to church or believing in God, but they tell you that “we are Russians and most of us are Orthodox”. They also retain all the symbols of their history, including the era of communism.
I think France has to rebirth again by saying “We had the French monarchy, the Revolution, many Republics, the secularity, and now we have to resurrect ourselves by embracing the idea of an independent French nation.” This includes withdrawing from the European Union. Reconciliation between the French people and its history can present others a model as well.
As far as I understand, you are addressing a deep-rooted issue in French history. Do you also have in mind the year 1905, when the state and the church were separated in saying those?
Yes. Actually it was a fight against Catholicism and started in the 18th century. It became harsher since 1905 and 1968 was another juncture.
The Dreyfus case and political Judaism
Is the Dreyfus case of decisive importance in this regard?
Of course yes. Political Judaism in a country where it was impossible to be racist and anti-semite provoked the Dreyfus case. Secular people coming from Jewish families created political Judaism. They were not really believers but complete atheists. They regarded Judaism not as a religion, but as a nation and gave birth to the idea of nationalism aiming to get Jews to come together to establish a nation. It put oil on the fire between communities in Odessa, Ukraine, Russia and Poland.
There have been pogroms in Ukraine, Russia, Poland Eastern Europe provoked by political Judaists. However such a thing was impossible in Western Europe, especially in France where the Jews were totally integrated into the society. Catholicism accepts minorities like Protestants, Jews and Muslims. There were Muslims in France since the 11th century and Jews before France had become Christians. People had the right to convert to Judaism before Talmudic Judaism.
Political Judaists provoked France and said “Oh look, there is anti-Judaism in France”. They divided the society as pro-Dreyfus and anti-Dreyfus. Of course there were mistakes, but they instrumentalized it by pushing the Jews to feel not belonging to French society, but instead to the Jewish nation.
An Israeli writer, Shlomo Sand, explained how those thinkers of political Judaism before Zionism created the Jewish nation.
Theodor Herzl exploiting the Dreyfus case created Zionism. He changed the name of an organization of political Judaism to the “Lovers of Zion”. A large section of Jews fought against the Lovers of Zion. When Theodor Herzl held the first meeting in Zurich many Jews demonstrators were doing all their efforts not to let him. After the Second World War, Zionists could impose their theory on the Jews due to what the Nazis did.
The concept of “anti-Semitism”
They created the concept of “anti-Semitism” which is totally wrong. Because there are so many Semitic people like the Arabs who are not Jews. In Yemen, for example, there are Jews. What can we call them? They are Yemeni, right? A big part of the Jews were Arabs in history. So that’s why they changed the history and imposed a new one. Those who tried to correct these points were accused of anti-Semitism after the Second World War. They were sent to the courts and convicted. People became afraid to talk about these things.
Arab Jews and Sephardic did not face any problems during the Second World War. In Türkiye, as you know, there is a big community of Jews. There is also an active community, I would say in the deep state of Türkiye, especially during the revolution of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.
Charles Maurras and four confederated states within France
The Dreyfus case was the turning point. People were feeling that there is a community within France not belonging to France. That’s why Charles Maurras, one of the founders of the Action Française, a movement created during the Dreyfus case, said: “Why I am against the Republic? Because in France there are four confederated states harming the French nation. First the Protestants, the Anglo-Saxons, the second Free Nations, the third the Jews. Today we cannot say the Jews are the fourth, with the foreigners who were used by all those first three confederated states to feel that they have not to be belonging to the French nation, but to be subjected to the others.
Who were those foreigners?
The foreigners were the Spanish, the Italians, the Portuguese, and the Polish. Those people were manipulated by England and US’s Anglo-Saxon deep state in France that still exists, by secret societies like the Free Nations and Bilderberg, and by political Judaism. So those foreigners were becoming a new part of the population, who do not feel themselves French, but foreigners protected by others.
Why couldn’t France absorb the migration?
You mentioned the protester as “who had/have no chance to be assimilated into the society” and “put in ghettos, suburbs of the biggest cities lacking the chance to have a job, to live nicely like the others.” Can you please elaborate on the economic aspect more? Why can’t France succeed in this?
Firstly, France, like some other countries in the EU, is facing serious financial problems and is very close to bankruptcy.
France did not have the capacity and money to absorb those people. They came to France and were used by politicians for political aims and just put aside away from society. How can you expect the new ones to embrace your identity while the French have already lost it?
There are mainly three reasons for financial problems.
First, we had and have a socialist model and France. Schools, universities, health, retirement, transportation, children help for families, rent etc. are covered by the state. That goes the same for the right and left wings of governments in French history.
Secondly, we have a big number of immigrant people who constitute an important rate of unemployment. The new generation of those people is enjoying the advantage of the subsidy system.
The third reason is what is imposed by international relations and the international policy on France: paying France a lot of money to the EU.
Add to all this the Ukraine policy. France followed NATO’s policies in this regard and we all know the impact of that on energy prices.
I think people are the course of the economy because things you used to buy for 1 euro, are today 2 euros.
The solution is not in my hands, I can say France needs to loosen its tax policy though. I can give you one example. I have some clients who want to open a company in France. When I give them the list of what they have to pay and what they are going to get back, they say “Oh no thank you, I will not do it in France. I will go to England and do it there.” In France taxes cost you sometimes 80% of your turnover.
Two distinct populations within France
About 1 million euro was gathered for the police who shot Nael M. Some claim that there is a sharp separation within French society between people with migration backgrounds and others. What would you say about that?
Today, there are two distinct populations within France in a sense. But drawing the separating line between people of foreign origin and other French is totally wrong.
40% of police officers are of foreign origin. The current minister of interior is Gérald Moussa Darmanin. Why Moussa? Because his mother is Algerian and she has been working as a cleaner in the offices until last year. Rachida Dati is an ex minister of justice. She has Moroccan origin. Fadila Amara was the minister for urban affairs. Her family is of Algerian origin. Even François Hollande has Algerian origin. At the moment, more than 10-20% of the population is of Algerian origin. But you don’t feel as if they are not French. We must remember that Algeria was French before Nice and Savoir were French. In short, there are a lot of people of migration origin working, paying their taxes and beneficiating from the system.
I would put the problem that way: There is a part of people of migration origin located in the suburbs, deprived of any job opportunities and thus not integrated into the system. Consequently, there are now two distinct groups of French citizens: those considered “integrated” within the Republic, and the “non-integrated” individuals who pose a threat to the peace and security of the former.
The police officers cannot go into some places in the suburbs. Drug trafficking is quite widespread. Sometimes they go out to the Champs Elysees and attack people in the street. You can never, for example, leave your mobile on the table in a cafe in Paris. You can get attacked in the metro. And if you go to the police, they will tell “We have thousands and thousands every hour”. Some possible tourists don’t prefer to visit France only for that reason.
“To destabilize not only France but the entire European continent”
Many say that President Emmanuel Macron is trying to make France more influential internationally. Some say he wants to lead a Europe that can function more independently from the US and NATO. But at the same time, he faced several large popular movements during his rule and is said to have failed to retain his popularity.
Foreign entities and individuals who aim to destabilize not only France but also the entire European continent are orchestrating this movement. There have been observed instances of calls for demonstrations through social media from email addresses that frequently change IP addresses, indicating a sophisticated system utilized exclusively by certain entities, such as the PEGASUS program. Moreover, this phenomenon is also spreading across Europe, which is grappling with sociological problems.
Restoring France’s influence on the global stage
President Macron has faced the repercussions of the misguided policies implemented by his predecessors, especially the governments of Presidents Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande. These administrations were entirely subservient to the United States. It was Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy, who obtained his election with the support of the CIA and the Zionist lobby, that reintegrated France into NATO. When Mr. Emmanuel Macron assumed power, he aimed to restore France’s influence on the global stage, leveraging the end of President Obama’s term. He experienced success for two years before being reined in by the Americans, who allegedly provided impetus to the “Yellow Vest” protests that destabilized Macron’s initial term. Notably, Macron did not originate from a political party and had limited political experience.
Washington blackmails Macron
Furthermore, Macron criticized NATO, describing it as suffering from “brain death,” which did not sit well with the Americans. He also sought to foster closer ties with Iran and Russia, which proved to be the final straw. Washington orchestrated media and diplomatic maneuvers against him, both directly and indirectly. Directly, they pressured Australia into unjustifiably cancelling a multibillion-euro contract, severely impacting the French economy. The contract in question pertained to submarine construction. A diplomatic crisis unfolded between Paris and Washington, and President Macron threatened to withdraw from NATO. However, he ultimately yielded to Washington’s blackmail, which included personal scandals and an increase in France’s debt to the World Bank and the IMF.
Indirectly, the US granted Türkiye, a NATO member they rely on, permission to provoke France in Libya and the eastern Mediterranean. Finally, the most devastating blow against Emmanuel Macron stemmed from American intervention in the resolution of the Lebanese situation. They interfered with Lebanese political actors to obstruct Macron’s efforts in resolving the crisis in Lebanon. The Americans, alongside the Israelis, criticized Macron for getting too close to the Lebanese Hezbollah, which is merely a Lebanese national resistance movement, akin to the French resistance movement during Germany’s occupation of France.
American-Zionist lobbies’ campaign against Macron
Additionally, President Macron had a confrontation with the Israeli army during a summit in Jerusalem when he visited a French religious building (a church) in the presence of the Israeli army. All these actions spurred American-Zionist lobbies to launch a media campaign against him. It is important to note that the media in France, particularly the mainstream media, are influenced by these lobbies, depicting Macron as incapable of handling internal issues. Naturally, the ongoing COVID-19 crisis exacerbated this sentiment. The economic crisis faced by European Union countries due to the American conflict with Russia on Ukrainian territory further contributed to this perception. It is also crucial to recall that Macron’s stance on this conflict has not been entirely clear to the Americans. His recent statement following his visit to China a few months ago drew the ire of Washington. He called on European Union countries not to succumb to American “hegemony” and to acknowledge the emerging multipolar world.