France Has Lost All Influence!

Alain Juppé is a popular French politician of the center-right party UMP. He served as prime minister under Jacques Chirac’s government in the 1990s, and is now the mayor of Bordeaux.

In the brief interview below, Mr. Juppé describes with dismay the political consensus that now governs Europe, with the Left and Right in Germany collaborating on mass immigration and the appeasement of Turkey.

Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:


0:00   France has lost all influence! Look at what happened during the migrant crisis!
0:04   Mrs. Merkel meets Mr. Erdogan, she makes an agreement with him.
0:08   In this agreement there are two things that we shouldn’t have accepted:
0:11   the abolition of visas between Turkey and the European Union under certain conditions,
0:15   and secondly the reopening of membership negotiations with Turkey.
0:19   France should have said “no”. She didn’t say it. Because our reputation is extremely weak right now.
0:23   I was in Brussels a few months ago and I saw very well what was going on.
0:27   In the European Parliament France doesn’t have a say any more. How is it possible?
0:30   All happens between the German MEPs from the right, the EPP (European Popular Party)
0:33   and the German MEPs from the left, the socialists: they make an agreement and we don’t have a say anymore.

36 thoughts on “France Has Lost All Influence!

  1. What a hypocrite. Last week an interview with the new “ambassador ” to France from Rojava in northern Syria revealed how when he was Foreign Affairs minister under Sarkozy in 2011 he refused to help the secular Kurds but helped the Sunni jihadis.

    • i have mixed feelings about the Kurds. What Saddam did to them was unspeakable – and it was definite proof that he had WMD, though the proof was conveniently ignored so Bush could be attacked for “lying”…Saddam sent them on to Syria for safe-keeping. That worked out well.

      If ever a people deserved their own state, it is the Kurds. Spread through Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Turkey, they need to be allowed their own place. Those Europeans who cut up the Middle East made a huge, ignorant mistake by not permitting them to have that.

      OTOH, as Sunni Muslims, they have the nasty cultural habit of killing Christians, Jews, Yazidis, and other “minorities”…i.e., those peoples who weren’t minorities till Islam made them so. Turkey has its annual Spring event on the border with Iraq: the Turkish army gathers there and begins assaults into the badlands of northern Iraq where the Kurdish rebels live. Turkey also suppresses its own Turkish Kurds.

      • WMD denial is right up there with Holocaust denial. It comes from the left and it is insidious. Iraq gassed it’s aggressors and then, poof, the weapons disappeared. The did exist and they ended up somewhere. Since it appears they have been utilized in Syria it would appear to a rational person that the re-appeared. But Bush bashing has no end and is an agenda of the MSM – hence there was no reason for the war on Iraq.

        Sure, the Kurds should have had there own state in the carve up. Who knows how the world might be different now. There are an infinity of possibilities.

        • When Bush & Blair invaded Iraq, Saddam did not have WMDs. There was no basis either for Blair’s infamous “45 minute” claim. Tony Blair you see is a liar, fantasist and accomplished con-man.

        • Some ended in Jordan ,Turkey and some ended in Rotterdam.2004 UN report by Demetrius Perricos the chairman of unmovic.

        • Two words or terms that I have problems with are terrorism and weapons of mass destruction as their meanings have become elastic.

      • I’ve never understood the claim that Saddam didn’t have WMDs. There was TV footage broadcast all over the world that showed all these intact Kurdish corpses littering the streets of Halabja, which was a rebellious Kurdish city. I checked the date, 16 March 1988. He used mustard gas and the nerve agent Sarin. If Sarin isn’t a WMD …

        • I keep hearing that: “Saddam had no WMD’s, Bush was lying, etc….”
          So, that makes Georges Sada, Saddam’s Air Vice Marshal a liar, when he hadn’t the slightest reason to be.
          Everyone, it seems, knows Saddam used WMD’s on the Kurds, so what happened to them? Sada tells us when the Zeyzoun dam in Syria collapsed in 2002 Saddam seized the opportunity and ferried his WMD’s into Syria by truck and planes in the guise of aid.
          The ridiculous claim that western inspectors could find no WMDs, so there couldn’t have been any is just hilarious; as if westerners could ever find anything in the desert that the arabs didn’t want them to find!

        • My rather primitive understanding is Saddam did have them- at least chemical weapons- at one time. After Gulf War I, his WMD programs were very constrained, but the teams working on it were kept intact and could have been quickly put into action once sanctions were lifted.

          It also appears that by Gulf War II, the WMD programs were essentially moribund. W, Powell, Blair along with every intelligence agncy in the world did not realize that at the time. That gives a patina of legitimacy to the notion that there were no WMDs in Iraq. But the sanctions were already eroding, and Saddam was just biding his time to get them going again.

      • The Kurds that have set up an autonomous but as yet unrecognised “statelet” in Rojava are trying to run it on secular ,democratic principles with gender equality and freedom of religious belief as long as that is private and does not try to dominate political discourse. They are not the PKK or Barzani’s crew. I believe they should be supported and given a chance to put their vision into practice. Of course tyrants like Assad and Erdogan will be horrified at such a political project going on under their noses.
        Juppé gave support to Syrian Islamists just as his boss Sarkozy did to our home-grown ones.

      • The West needs to cultivate a geopolitics of Realislamik — whereby the mere fact of a people (or groups, or individuals) being Muslim axiomatically makes them our enemy; but, whenever the complexity of our geopolitical self interest on a case-by-case basis indicates that one Muslim people/group/individual should be supported against another (“lesser evil”), we should do so.

        The parsing taxonomy then shifts from trying to weed out the “good Muslims” from among the “bad Muslims” (predicated upon the silly notion that any Muslims are knowably good) — to a casuistry of temporarily useful Muslims vis-a-vis other Muslims endangering the world.

        This Realislamik would only work, needless to say, if resting on the wily intelligence born of a zero tolerance for all Muslims.

  2. Leave it to a cheese eating surrender monkey to cry in his pinot noir about his country’s lack of European influence. But…but we are Enarcs and we know best. How’s that Euro-Arab Dialogue thingee working out now Monsieur Juppe?
    Je prefer Alain Delon to Alain Juppe.

    • IIRC, Bat Ye’or said it was the French and Germans who were so anxious to make that Eurabian “dialogue”. Ah, the temptations of fossil fuels…

      • Eurabia was a difficult book to read, I may need to read it a second time to get it all.

        • I agree. Not a page turner. But Emmet Scott’s book is, and so are the booklets Bill Warner has written. Check out his videos, too. Those don’t address her subject – i.e., the deliberate invasion of Europe. No one I’m aware of has really addressed fully the invasion of America, but you’d find Ann Corcoran’s book a good start:

          Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America (Civilization Jihad Reader Series) (Volume 2)

          It’s part of a series on Civilizational Jihad…imagine those words passing Obama’s lips

          • You mention Emmett Scott…can I please direct any interested readers to the website where Emmett Scott has a feature essay for the month of July. Entitled ‘The Sunni-Shia Divide & Islam’s Puzzling Origins’, it discusses the question of whether Muhammed existed. This is a question that is being raised quite frequently now as more investigation is being done into Islam & its origins, including in Scott’s book ‘Muhammed & Charlemagne Revisited etc’., Norbert Pressburg’s ‘What The Modern Martyr Should Know’, Robert Spencer’s ‘Did Muhammed Exist’ & probably others I haven’t yet read. Although Muhammed, his life & legacy are central to most discussions on the nature of Islam & behaviour of its followers, I have been convinced by my reading that he was a fiction. It is a pity that this subject cannot be more widely discussed everywhere in the West, even if it should eventually be proven to be incorrect.

          • Klara, thank you for this reminder. I’ve been remiss in not mentioning the fine work at The New English Review, including this page of all Emmet Scott’s essays there.


            I’ve exchanged some emails with Dr. Pressburg re his book,”What Every Modern Martyr Should Know”…it’s a translation from his original German book and that lousy title makes the book look frivolous, which it’s not. Very readable and quite fascinating. I believe one of our commenters did a review of his work a few years ago.

            I also agree with you re the premise that Mohammed’s life is largely a fiction. OTOH, as one of my theology professors pointed out about the historicity of certain characters in the Bible, e.g., Moses and David, that when a person is described in very human terms, warts and all, it’s likely they were real people and not myths. If we use that standard for the ugly incidents in which Mohammed stars, he was certainly real enough. The gross massacre of the Jews in Medina is enough to convince me, if I use my professor’s guideline.

            I read a fascinating account by a Turkish Christian neurologist who made a good case for Mohammed probably suffering from a lesion in his occipital lobe. Unfortunately, the book was ruined by sudden breaks in his exposition to insert fervent Christian sermons. The two didn’t meld at all and each detracted from the other. Scientific/medical explanations combined with Jesus stories/eruptions is an awkward juxtaposition – a detraction from both. Still, I wish I’d saved the book because his explanations of what is likely to happen with occipital lesions did a lot to explain some of the more bizarre beliefs Mohammed held.

            The central theses in Emmet Scott’s book had a profound effect on my view of Western history. One doesn’t often experience the depth charge paradigmatic shift like the one “Mohammed and Charlemagne” causes. You come to the last page and sadly realize how deeply skewed your cultural education and beliefs have been. It becomes more comprehensible on listening to Bill Warner’s video, 1400 Years of Fear:


            Things that are unbearable are buried. I first began to realize that when I studied the trauma induced by the deaths of 625,000 mostly young and healthy Americans in six weeks, all from the 1918 flu epidemic. That horror was never metabolized at all, but it sure does help explain the hedonistic frenzy of the 1920s.

            Between that flu epidemic and WWI, the world lost more than 12 million people in a short period of time. No one is sure of the exact numbers. However, we DO know of the coming global demographic implosion due at mid-century. I wonder if knowing it ahead of time will help us prepare or if it will cause the same reactive frenzy, only this time around, ahead of the cataclysm – e.g., will already-apocalyptic Iran decide to unleash on Israel – and probably do the same to the Sunni Muslims throughout the ME? Not to mention its plans for the Great Satan over here.

            Anyway, The New English Review is one of the best online magazines going. Look at July’s cover image:


          • I think she wrote the book in French. Translations can be a rough read. I also had some difficulty with The Prince. I recall going back over a paragraph of that book and seeing the entire paragraph was one run on sentence.

            Bill Warner, I haven’t read anything he’s written, but I have downloaded his YouTube videos. He is good. Love his bowtie. And the way he pronounces Kaffir is soo Kentucky Fried Chicken.

            As far as what has passed Obama’s lips…this is a family values website, but I have my suspicions.

          • Interesting comments. What Every Martyr Should Know… is on my summer reading list, maybe I’ll move it to the top.

            I have read Spencer’s Did Muhammad Exist and Spencer makes a solid argument. I have come to view Muhammad much as I do King Arthur, a mere legend. Over at Faith Freedom, Ali Sina (who is a respected friend of Robert’s) argues that Muhammad did exist. Sina’s argument makes a few leaps of faith IMO however and if I recall Spencer’s conclusion he offers that Muhammad did not exist as his considered opinion and not so much a proven argument.

          • Whether Muhammad existed is not really relevant (that is, if we have disabused ourselves of the romantic notion that Muslims will “change” and “reform” if we give them enough evidence about their Islam), as long as Muslims believe he did and follow his mental disorder & dictates. “If Muhammad didn’t exist, it would be necessary for Muslims to invent him.”

      • the temptations to servility and dhimmitude is so strong in the west they cannot resist it.
        People should learn that honor is more important than life itself. Let alone oil.

  3. What a hypocrite indeed! In Bordeaux he is tripping over his own “pieds” to accommodate his muslim “subjects”, by making cheap lands available for mosquebuilding.

    • Unfortunately that happens all too often here and pols of all hues do it. It would not surprise me if some examples of FN mayors doing it were to surface.

  4. Now that the USA is the new Saudi Arabia of fossil fuels maybe the French and the Germans will suck up to us cowboy Americans. Not!

  5. Philippe de Villiers, owner of the wildly successful Puy du Fou, a French amusement park which is based on French history and tradition, has recently come out with a book “What I Saw”. In it he traces the evolution of France’s progressive elitism (aka self-loathing) during his lifetime serving in admin and politics. He describes the French as prisoners of La Cage aux Phobes, namely, people who live in fear of being called xenophobes, islamophobes, homophobes, europhobes etc more than they fear the eclipse of their culture.
    He knew or met most of the players of his era, one of whom was Solzhenitsyn, who told him during a stroll that the West was on the edge of a void and that the only reasonable politics left was dissidence, about which Solzhenitsyn knew a bit, regardless of what one thinks of him otherwise. Reasonable people needed to be outcasts.
    I’m more of an optimist and hope it hasn’t come to that, at least here in Australia. But since de Villiers had his conversation with Solzhenitsyn we’ve seen…well, we know what we’ve seen. You’re protected from all kinds of words and thoughts – but you can’t send your daughter or niece into a public toilet and be sure there are no blokes in there. Certain social and sexual fences have come down overnight. In line with that, notions of national sovereignty nobody would have doubted till recently are now scoffed at by the New Class and bien-pensants.

    The fact that all of this suits the expansion of what looks more and more like a German Empire, complete with Ottoman buddies just like the good old days, adds an extra layer of concern.

    • Yes; but this “phobophobia” wouldn’t be so dire, if Mohammedans weren’t metastasizing horribly, burrowing into the West in a diverse array of modes of stealth jihad infiltration to complement the punctuated (and escalating) terror attacks of their Mujahideen-of-the-Sword.

      It’s not a matter of the West suffering some kind of vague Spenglerian / Freudian / Mark-Twainian malaise; it’s a matter of actual enemies as industriously as army ants trying to destroy our civilization. The former without the latter we could have the luxury to live with, and gripe & bicker about, and write books and make movies lamenting, and trying to reform as this century unfolds into the next. The latter, however, is an existentially mortal game-changer.

      Certainly the former in complex ways enables the latter. And indeed, ironically, one of the modes of enablement is precisely this growing notion (even in the Counter-Jihad) that the “real problem” is not Islam, but the West.

      If, by way of analogy, the father or grandfather of a family was found out to be an incenstuous pedophile, it would be irresponsibly irrational to make that the primary problem while there is smoke billowing from the basement indicating the house is on fire.

  6. (Forget the hijab controversy, please do), why can’t France impose – as law & social norm – its famous Law of 1905? Thought the law was meant to give France heft and lift. Award the nation with a stable secular ethos. Seems the law is utterly flaccid in this age of Islamic pandering and fear.

    I pull from this that the Law of 1905 was fundamentally flawed – somehow; that the law incorporated the very civic sickness it was was meant to proscribe and isolate. Not that Monsieur Barre wrote up the proper diagnose or prescribed the civic cure. Yet, neither did Zola.

    In short, if the Law of 1905 was truly workable it would work against Islam.

    What to do? Don’t ask me! Ancestrally, the family had settled in Vevey Switzerland for cause & reason.

  7. Alain Juppe, for those who don’t know, has been a big supporter of muslim immigration. He’s very much part of the entrenched establishment in France.

  8. Consensus politics is denial of choice. As such, it is a heinous crime against democracy.

    Meanwhile Veterans Today claims that EU leaders took bribes from Erdogan in return for the visa deal with Turkey. Having despatched the scum of the earth to Europe last year, Erdogan has now recruited and army of real terrorists who will use visa-free entry to get to Europe.

    • On 5 March 1959 Charles De Gaulle had this to say about muslims, and France

      “Essayez d’intégrer de l’huile et du vinaigre. Agitez la bouteille. Au bout d’un moment, ils se sépareront de nouveau. Les arabes sont des arabes, les français sont des français.”

      “Try integrating oil and vinegar. Shake the bottle. In a moment they are separated again.

      The Arabs are Arabs. The French are French”

      De Gaulle said it is all well that there are French of different colors, but only on one condition – that they would remain a small minority. “Otherwise, France would no longer be France.”

      “We are first and foremost a European people, with light skin, of Greek and Latin culture, and of the Christian religion,” Charles De Gaulle stated.

Comments are closed.