French Riots are Punishment for Rejecting EU, Neo Cons

The current French riots illustrate well how racial minorities can be used as a weapon. These riots were aggravated by the provocations of the French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy and are designed to discredit the anti-globalist President Jacques Chirac and his Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin. These riots are also beginning to generate in France a paranoid need for a totalitarian (police) state.

The riots started in reaction to the still uncleared deaths of two teenagers trying to escape a police control. These were of African descent and had no criminal records. In France, as generally in the Western world, the relations between the police and the poor immigrant communities are hostile and mini-riots are common in reaction to badly managed police operations. But, this time, the French Interior Minister and, seemingly, some elements of his anti-riot police have fed the fire with provocations which can be qualified either stupid or calculated.

After two days, the riots were fading away, due in particular to the intervention of many social workers belonging themselves to the pertinent communities. Then came the first provocation, almost unbelievable: a few men, presumed to be from the anti-riot forces, threw gas grenades into a mosque where peaceful people were praying.

These facts are today largely confirmed. Instead of apologizing, the Interior Minister referred to the war against the muslim extremism and later, speaking of the suburb`s youngsters implied in the riots, he promised publicly to “clean up these rabble”.

In the eyes of many in France and particularly the Muslim immigrants, the figure of the French Interior Minister N. Sarkozy is himself a provocation, due to his well-known strong pro-Zionist and ultra-liberal positions. His relations with the President J. Chirac are ordinarily hostile and one can wonder why N. Sarkozy is still member of this government.

From 1981 to 1995, three successive “socialist” French governments favored by various means a massive illegal immigration from the Middle-East and Central Africa. Especially the two successive governments of Francois Mitterrand who was among the main builders of the totalitarian European Union. These self-professed socialist governments allowed the corporations to use the undereducated and desperate immigrant workforce to weaken the French syndicalism and depress the salaries as well as the working conditions. As the ultra-liberalism progressed, the unemployment increased and the right wing politics persuaded a large public that all the problems were due to the immigrants.

In short, the leftists provoked the massive immigration to undermine social cohesion and empower a destructive ultra-liberalism while the rightists camouflaged the social destructiveness of this ultra-liberalism by putting the blame on the immigrants: such a sordid teamwork illustrates how false and artificial could be the dichotomy of “left” and “right” wing politics.

Then came the 9/11 and the neo-con “war on terror” which allowed the “neo-con” (globalist, ultra-liberal and Zionist) agents inside the French State to impose a local version of the American Patriot Act and to enhance the repressive role of the police. Meanwhile, these French neo-cons managed to drastic ally reduce the social help to the unemployed and the poor in general.

Most immigrants of the first and many of the second generation are jobless and relegated to ghetto-like suburbs. The intense social frustration in these ghettoes makes them very inflammable. These suburbs are a social bomb in the hands of the negative forces wanting to blow up the traditional resistances of the French people to the totalitarianism.

The negative forces in question are also called the “central bankers” since they are controlling the Western world’s Central Banks. In fact, they are controlling the whole Western financial system as well as most of the mainstream medias, the entertainment industry and also many corporations through their banks and their shareholding.

Never in the human history such a great (negative) power was concentrated in such a few (malevolent) hands. In the Anglo-Saxon world, the agents of these negative forces are commonly called “neo-cons”.

Last summer, the President J. Chirac had the courage to fire the neo-con Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. Immediately, another neo-con agent, the Minister of the Economy N. Sarkozy presented himself as the only possible successor of J.-P. Raffarin. However, the President J. Chirac designated instead the antiglobalist D. de Villepin who was until then the Minister of the Foreign Affairs and a nightmare of the American neo-cons as one of the main opponents to the Irak war.

Moreover, J. Chirac took back also two other strategical ministries from the neo-cons: the Economy, hold then by N. Sarkozy and the Justice, hold by another neo-con. It seems that J. Chirac had not enough power to dismiss completely N. Sarkozy from the government since the latter became the new Minister of the Interior.

The French Presidential elections will take place in 2007 and N. Sarkozy has since long declared his intention to became the next President of France. His main challenger will be certainly the actual Prime Minister D. de Villepin, the antiglobalist protege of the President J. Chirac. That`s why it is so important for N. Sarkozy and his hidden coaches the central bankers to destabilise J. Chirac and D. de Villepin with the current riots.

Unfortunately, this seems to work since N. Sarkozy is skillful in convincing many French citizens traumatized by the riots that he could control the situation if only the President J. Chirac and the Prime Minister D. de Villepin let him use all the repressive methods he wishes.

Another possible reason why a neo-con agent like N. Sarkozy such inflated the current riots in France with his provocations is that his puppet masters the central bankers see one of their biggest enemy in the antiglobalist French populations. This is after all the people who rejected so clearly the totalitarian and ultra-liberal Constitution of the EU. Obviously, such a people must be convinced in priority that a totalitarian European Union is good for them. And what better way for that than to provoke first a formidable social cataclysm and then offer the protection of the totalitarianism?