Gen. Piquemal: “The Ummah Finds Itself Structurally at War With Every Other Human Group”

General Christian Piquemal is the former commander of the French Foreign Legion. As you may recall, early last year Gen. Piquemal was arrested and charged after taking part in an anti-migrant protest in Calais.

Gen. Piquemal recently took part in a “de-Islamization” event in Béziers in southern France. Below is a video of the speech he gave at the event. Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:


00:00   I’m going to welcome now General Christian Piquemal
00:08   So you know who I am,
00:12   Christian Piquemal, president
00:16   of the Circle of the Patriotic Citizens, a group
00:20   that has been a registered association since
00:24   October 2015, and which unites
00:28   about 60-70 municipalities — a significant
00:32   number of patriotic citizens.
00:36   During this journey you saw
00:40   numerous subjects that were tackled,
00:44   and they, of course, contributed
00:48   to enlightening us a little about the challenge of de-Islamizing Europe.
00:52   In my speech I’m planning to tackle
00:56   a particular aspect that hasn’t been discussed yet,
01:00   that is, the loyalty
01:04   and of the duty of engagement on the part of the essential
01:08   ruling authorities of our country in the process
01:12   of de-Islamization. We’ll see
01:16   that this attitude of blindness on the part of the elites
01:20   always leads to the exoneration of Islam.
01:24   We’ll also find out
01:28   that the elites are courting
01:32   Islam and against those who are militating
01:36   for the introduction of the Shariah, and for those who advocate
01:40   the strict application of secularism, equality
01:45   doesn’t exist. We’ll then
01:49   underline the fact that the propagators of Shariah
01:53   aim at the destruction
01:57   of the light of loyalty that unites the French
02:01   with their country and their nation. And also
02:05   try to create felons uniquely loyal
02:09   to the Ummah. Which, as you know,
02:13   is the Islamic nation.
02:17   To talk about Muslims as a human group
02:21   is to enter into the logic of Shariah.
02:25   Which doctrinally defines
02:29   every Muslim as a member of Ummah, as we just saw.
02:33   The latter — the Ummah — finds itself structurally
02:37   at war with every other human group
02:41   that does not submit to the Islamic order.
02:45   The duty of engaging against
02:49   this lethal process in motion is therefore
02:53   a major patriotic duty.
02:57   Those in power,
03:01   whoever they are, owe the citizens the truth.
03:05   This truth has to be the keystone
03:09   and the best bulwark against the danger
03:13   of the dissemination and penetration of Shariah.
03:17   Emil Zola said
03:21   “A society is only strong
03:25   when it puts the truth
03:30   in the bright sunlight.”
03:34   How right he was! How can we get there,
03:38   when a former French prime minister
03:42   declared on the occasion of a reunion of authorities on dialogue with Islam?
03:46   “It’s a great challenge
03:50   for the coming years: proving that Islam
03:54   is totally compatible with democracy, the Republic,
03:58   and the equality of men and women.”
04:02   How to get there, again, when
04:06   Mgr Michel Dubost, bishop of Evry
04:10   (former Army bishop), pronounces those words:
04:14   “In principle I would prefer
04:18   that churches become mosques rather than
04:22   restaurants.” By those words
04:26   we note, alas, that the Catholic episcopate,
04:30   almost in its entirety,
04:34   has chosen the submission to the Shariah.
04:42   The pope himself
04:46   on several occasions opted for
04:50   dependence on and submission to the Shariah.
04:58   It’s clear that globally
05:02   Christianity is kowtowing before Islam.
05:06   The Church therefore bears a huge responsibility.
05:10   it almost gave in, backed away, courted Islam,
05:14   and submitted to the Shariah.
05:18   Concerning the army, a world I know well, the assessment is
05:23   similar to the one concerning the Church:
05:27   submission and Omerta [mafia law of silence]. We can
05:31   repeat word for word the comments of a
05:35   military person in an interview: those at headquarters don’t want to see;
05:39   they close their eyes. It’s easier
05:43   for them to make believe all is fine,
05:47   while inside all is extremely wrong.
05:51   Directives from headquarters show
05:55   the different treatment of soldiers of
05:59   the Muslim faith. The stats
06:03   Show, in fact, that there are many more case of rebellion,
06:07   desertion and insubordination noted
06:11   in the case of Muslim soldiers.
06:15   Alas, there is also
06:19   in the field of leaders on the local
06:23   and national levels. In fact, the compromises
06:27   to the Shariah, we’ll see, are numerous. The concessions in France
06:31   at local, regional, municipal, and community levels.
06:35   It shows that everywhere the retreat
06:39   of the elites is impressive. Those concessions
06:43   are a form of treason and partiality
06:47   on their part. In fact, they are very numerous.
06:51   I quote:
06:55   “The principal; 1. progressive de facto abolition
06:59   of the ban on the female veil in the
07:03   government spaces and public services, also in school
07:07   and the workplace. 2. generalization
07:12   of the wearing of the veil in the zones with a strong Muslim majority
07:16   with pressure on non-Muslims to do the same.
07:20   3. Abolition of mixing the swimming pools and
07:24   athletic places, and slowly in some primary schools.
07:28   4. Pork-free meals in school cafeterias.
07:32   5. Interdiction of the alcohol at official parties
07:36   when Muslims are present. Progressive disappearance
07:40   of businesses that selling non-halal deli
07:44   and alcohol products, we just talked about —
07:48   A subversive adoption of the rules of Shariah
07:52   in municipalities with Muslim majorities!
07:56   Subsidies of temples [mosques] and Muslim associations.
08:00   No to the systematic maintenance of
08:04   churches and chapels, demolished or possibly slowly
08:08   converted into mosques. The changing of names
08:12   of communities with names that sound too Christian.
08:16   The opening of Quranic schools. On the national level
08:20   the concessions are even greater.
08:24   [unintelligible] suppression of holidays
08:28   from the Christian calendar, replaced by Muslim holidays.
08:32   Muslim holy prayer
08:36   mandatory in large multinational companies
08:40   and also in small or medium companies.
08:44   General abolition of the ban on the veil everywhere.
08:48   Modification of programs
08:52   and school books to suppress,
08:57   especially in science and in history, everything that contradicts the Shariah.
09:01   Hardening of laws against Islamophobia
09:05   and progressive impossibility of all criticism
09:09   of Muslim dogmas. Privileged teaching
09:13   of Arabic in national education.
09:17   Questioning of gay marriage and gender equality.
09:21   And to top it all off,
09:25   modification of
09:29   foreign policy of an Islamized France with
09:33   a massive immigration of Muslim provenance.
09:37   We can see it, society
09:41   in all its components: politics, education
09:45   security, army, economy, religion; are all touched by
09:49   This… Everyone buries his head in the sand.
09:53   And when someone, by chance, dares to tell the truth,
09:57   he is despised, condemned, pilloried.
10:01   What can we say
10:05   about this assessment and the previous ones?
10:09   For a state, as we all know,
10:13   only the quality of its citizens counts, and a as consequence,
10:17   their loyalty to the nation and their
10:21   sincere adherence to societal systems: legal, cultural.
10:25   That’s normal to expect from every citizen.
10:29   it’s obvious that under
10:33   this perspective there’s conflict of loyalties,
10:37   between loyalty to Ummah and loyalty
10:41   to France or other European nations.
10:45   Obviously these latter assessments
10:49   are witness to their very strong incompatibility.
10:53   Well, in a state of law,
10:58   obviously secular, application of the laws
11:02   that rule the state is imperative!
11:06   The law is sovereign and unique, and has to apply
11:10   to everyone! And it cannot compete with
11:14   other laws, especially the Shariah.
11:18   In order to get to this result,
11:22   however, there is a condition: France
11:26   has to recover the use of free speech
11:30   and turn it into a weapon!
11:34   If terrorism is fought by
11:38   discretion and patience, by intelligence and infiltration,
11:42   Islamism is fought by
11:46   strong words and an absolute truth!
11:54   But we note, alas,
11:58   that France for last couple of decades
12:02   has backed away a lot and is ready to give away everything.
12:06   Today,
12:10   and regardless of who the next president will be,
12:14   Shariah is a threat
12:18   that is the most serious one, as much for our country as for
12:22   other European countries. Whatever we do or do not do
12:26   in the coming months will be critical
12:30   for France and Europe.
12:34   The truth, as we saw, is the best rampart
12:38   against Islamism. The state cannot
12:43   in any case be partial towards
12:47   the propagation of the Shariah. It cannot betray the people.
12:51   Let us never forget
12:55   the accurate words of Emile Zola:
12:59   “When you imprison the truth underground,
13:03   it piles up there.
13:07   It accumulates such an explosive power that on the day
13:11   when it explodes, it blows everything up
13:15   with it.”
13:23   And finally the words of Georges Clemenceau: [French PM before and during WW1]
13:27   [unintelligible] he remains, you all know it, in history,
13:31   the Tiger [his nickname], who makes ministers fall, the founder
13:35   of regimes, but he was above all a great
13:39   patriotic republican, who today
13:43   would be very useful to France. Let’s keep
13:47   in mind this superb quotation
13:51   to meditate on more that ever:
13:55   “Glory to the county where we talk, shame
13:59   to the country where we shut up.”
14:07   This will by my conclusion. You know
14:11   France is living through an enormous tragedy, and
14:15   unless patriotic citizens rise up,
14:19   she may die of it.
14:23   So everywhere, like Zola and Clemenceau,
14:28   let’s tell the truth with strength
14:32   in order to save her!

21 thoughts on “Gen. Piquemal: “The Ummah Finds Itself Structurally at War With Every Other Human Group”

  1. Parts of the general’s speech could be used as a FACTs sheet for the indictment of all the Traitors when the time comes!

    And that time will come!

      • Mozilla Firefox and IE options – neither browser recognizes the image posted as video — here as well as at VladTepes’ blog. Yet I can see and play videos elsewhere on the net. -HRW

        • The platform is relatively new, and causes problems on some browsers and operating systems. I watch them on Chrome (which I don’t like very much).

          I’ll ask Vlad about this; it’s his baby.

  2. Isaiah 5: 20 in fullfilling prophecy (woe to those who call evil ‘good’ and good ‘evil’, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for weet and zweet for bitter)’. The pope, who despises populist’s like this brave general, could better read this Bible-text again and pray for his own soul… shabbat shalom everyone!

    • I’m afraid that this pope is no longer a pope, but an impostor. I made a bet that he will be the last one, the harlot riding the beast that is shaken down and being trampled upon. The beast being the UN. In any case I hope I’m wrong and lose the bet 🙂

  3. “When Mgr Michel Dubost, bishop of Evry
    (former Army bishop), pronounces those words:
    “In principle I would prefer
    that churches become mosques rather than
    restaurants.” By those words
    we note, alas, that the Catholic episcopate,
    almost in its entirety has chosen submission to Shariah.”

    That would appear to be the case.
    has chosen the submission to the Shariah.

  4. Is General Piquemal lying? Is anything he said here not true? Is any part of it not factual? Is he wrong? I think we know the answers to these questions. And I suspect that the elite/”elite”, or at any rate a large proportion of them, who are imposing on our peoples the agenda of Islamisation, also know the answers, and that their answers are the same as ours. In concert with their globalist masters, however, they steam ahead.

    They can, however, be stopped. They can be stopped because we are the people and we, the people, together, are stronger than they are. But first we must stand before them and demand that they stop. Will that happen? I am partly pessimistic, partly optimistic.
    A tipping point must first be reached, and in this regard it will be better if further deterioration in Sweden, let’s say, happens as quickly as possible. It would be a huge tragedy to see a country such as Sweden “go” but it could be the “sacrifice that saved the rest”. Could be. I’m not hugely optimistic about even this. And my pessimistic side tells me that it’s already too late, that Europe is too weak, will never defend itself, is frightened; that our politicians will choose not to resist their masters; and that in any case. Islam has already achieved too much and is too determined to ever be stopped.

    Many years ago I taught civil engineering at a university in an Islamic country. It was not easy for me. (By the way, I am not about to tar all Muslims, as individuals, and in all islamic countries, with the same brush.) Among us foreigners there was considerable talk of “change”, of changing the ways of our students, of encouraging them, for example, to work harder, to be honest. (For me, their most difficult collective trait , though, was their profound stubbornness.) I was talking with a colleague one day, himself a Muslim, possibly “lapsed”, and not from the country we were working in. “Joe”, he said, “would YOU change?” Would I change, I asked myself, because another person, an outsider, a foreigner, a “non-believer” (though with regard to this last one, I didn’t see it then in these terms). A good question.

    And so it is, I suspect, with the matter of changing one’s beliefs, ideas and opinions, particularly when these are deeply held, are “the bedrock of one’s life. Those who would deny the truth of what General Piquemal has said are unlikely to be convinced otherwise by anyone or anything trying to persuade them that they should change. To change what-in the case of immigration, refugees/”refugees”- is likely part of one’s world view, part of one’s entire belief system, can be too hard. There can be too much of one’s self to lose.

    One day over a year ago, before I’d thought much about these things, and as a life-long supporter of all things Left and liberal, I found myself listening to and watching on YouTube-I’m not sure how I got there- Geert Wilder’s closing speech, in his own defence, at his “more Moroccans or less Moroccans?” trial. “If this man is extreme right wing” I told myself, “then so am I.” Then I began to listen to more, not only what he said; to read (rather a lot); to reflect, and I’m at the point I’m now at. I have my “new truth”. I was blind but now I see. What will it take for the resident of Malmö who recently said on film that Sweden should have more immigrants, to change his mind? Will ANYTHING persuade him to change his mind? I don’t know. He already has “all the answers”. “Let’s not exaggerate”, he said.

    What is the point of what I’m writing? They’re just a few thoughts, let’s say.

    • We who study psychology – the logic of the soul – know that the tipping point is “food”. So if you ask what will it take to change the minds of men, it will be “empty supermarkets”.

      Even Hitler rode the real physical hunger of the German Volk, a fact that is not being taught!

    • It is clear to me not only from what you write about but from the way you write that you are an intelligent, decent, sensitive person. I am not being facetious. You are a quality individual. But none of that matters at this point. There will be no changing Muslims’ beliefs. There will be no success making them see reason. There will be no convincing them of anything. And they will not stop. Quite the contrary. Look, let me cut to the chase. The future is a horror beyond imagining. And at the end of it, at the end of wars, not a war but numberless wars of every imaginable size and scope…at the end there will either be total darkness, a world enslaved, or glimmers of light here and there. Those glimmers will only have been achieved by fighting fighting fighting the monstrosity of Islam to a standstill. And maybe, in some places, God willing, beating it back. That is the future. Our future. Nothing can stop it now.

      • ricpic, if Islam prevails, please understand that ultimately they will be destroyed. It wont be by the hand of man but by the hand of Almighty God and his Messiah Jesus (or Yeshua in Hebrew). He will return as is clear and all those enemies of the truth will bow and be totally eliminated off the earth. You can count on this. We just need to be on His team.

    • In part of what I wrote here about changing one’s beliefs, views and opinions I was trying to express my own idea that to change the beliefs etc. of other people can be very hard. We tend to resist change if attempts in that direction come from someone (for example, a family member, friend or acquaintance) telling us we are wrong, and why. We resist because-among other possible reasons, the basis on which we view the world, our belief system, is threatened. Change must, on the other hand, come from within oneself. There might be some kind of “moment” at which we see what we’ve previously not seen.

      I’m sorry I didn’t check more carefully my own writing. In the following, I’d previously omitted the the words in capitals.

      I was talking with a colleague one day, himself a Muslim, possibly “lapsed”, and not from the country we were working in. “Joe”, he said, “would YOU change?” Would I change MY DEEP-ROOTED CULTURAL BEHAVIOR, I asked myself, because another person, an outsider, a foreigner, a “non-believer” (though with regard to this last one, I didn’t see it then in these terms) WAS TELLING ME, EVEN IN A WAY THAT WAS KIND AND APPROPRIATE AND SO ON THAT I SHOULD DO SO, SHOULD BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY. A good question.

      As an example of this sort of thing, even my partner is unconvinced of the dangers, about what’s clearly enough unfolding. We discuss, we argue, but she hasn’t yet decided to find out for herself, or hasn’t yet experienced her “moment of truth”, her awakening. She’s holding on determinedly to what she believes.

      Also, in the following, there is possible ambiguity.

      “If this man is extreme right wing” I told myself, “then so am I.” Then I began to listen to more, not only what he said; to read (rather a lot); to reflect, and I’m at the point I’m now at.

      “not only to what he said” can be read as “not only what HE said” or “not only to what he SAID”. I meant the first of these. In fact I’ve read quite widely and extensively. (I’m at present reading “The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom” by Mark Durie, which I recommend.)

      Hello ricpic, perhaps my writing was so poor that (maybe) you misunderstood me. My ideas were about changing the beliefs of those in our countries who are in favor of this ongoing invasion etc. and about changing our own ideas, not about changing the views or beliefs of Muslims.

  5. In a sense, the terrorists are beneficial.

    Any opposition to Muslim infiltration of society is based on the threat of terrorism. There is very little public opposition based on the fact that Islamic doctrine is incompatible with democracy and that as a strongly-cohesive identity group, Muslims have every chance of changing laws and administrative practices through legal maneuvers.

    In other words, even non-violent Muslims should not be admitted into western countries, as they give political and social support to practices completely alien to Western culture. I do not, however, advocate interfering with Muslims already citizens. We gave them citizenship, so we have to live with it.

    Trump bases any actions affecting Muslims as a measure against terrorism. Would he have lost the election with any stronger of a stand? Who knows? The liberals and left were pretty solidly against him anyway, and even the evangelicals were willing to give him a pass on his lewd video.

    I think charter schools are going to be a major problem. Of course, the Muslims are going to create their own charter schools with public support, and teach sharia and jihad. They will also teach mathematics, composition, rhetoric and history (sort of), so you’ll have well-educated, well-spoken jihadi US citizens.

    Muslims may or may not get a handle on domestic terrorism. Terrorism is a drag on their infiltration efforts, but it is part of Muslim (Muslim Brotherhood) doctrine that terrorism is a step along the way to a sharia society. It’s just not time yet.

    • I don’t believe we have to accept the adherents to an ideologically based belief system that masquerades as a religion (Islam) any more than we would accept the followers of socialism in all its guises for simply being ‘citizens.’

      At some future point the ideologies of Islam and socialism need to be identified as such and publicly exposed for what they truly represent, and then they must be banned as a clear and present danger to the American Constitutional Republic so that when any of that ideology re-surfaces at some time in the future, and it will because ideology is not easily eradicated, those who profess such belief may be treated as potential traitors/terrorists.

      Just like Senator Joe McCarthy was on the ball back in the 1950s, but what a pity that he was let down by his own side.

      There was a reason a constitutional republic was given to the American people – and you are just as well aware of that reasoning as I am Ronald – and that was to safeguard the republic against other forms of ‘government’ or political/ideological encroachment that the founding fathers knew knew would be used to undermine the republic from the get go.

      No democracy can ever be a perfect example of how government by the people for the people may work, but the American Republic is about as perfect a type of democracy that mankind will ever produce, and that is worth preserving from all the other tried and failed forms of ‘government’ and that we must be constantly mindful of.

      • Ideally, “democracy” in the United States was intended to function only at the lowest levels — in counties, towns, townships, parishes, etc.; at most at the state level. The Founders never intended the massive level of “democratic” governance we have now at the federal level, nor the way the states have arrogated power to themselves at the expense of the localities.

        The Constitutional Republic was intended to act as a firewall to keep that sort of thing from happening. But the creation of the Federal Reserve proved to be the universal lytic agent that rich and power-hungry people had been longing for. The permanent gush of fiat money has eaten away at the firewall for a hundred years, making it the thin slice of Swiss cheese it is today.

        • Yes indeed Baron. And it grates on my nerves no end to hear and to see ‘democracy’ being touted as the magic panacea above what was originally intended within the republic.

          Churchill recognized that ‘democracy’ had its limitations and there would be those who would take advantage of those limitations.

          The Australian Constitution is in many ways a copy of the American Constitution, but our founding fathers were not dedicated in providing inalienable rights to a population that they wished to excise their control over.

          In your part of the world things could have been a whole lot different today if Joe McCarthy had been given adequate support.

          • May I add appro pos to the discussion that the McCarren act barred Communists from immigration into the country. I believe the Supreme Court invalidated that law, so we now have almost no ideological filter for immigration.

            The Supreme Court has been a huge force for dissolution of our societal and cultural norms. The Constitution specifically grants the right of Congress to remove any areas from judicial review.

            In my opinion, the law clearly granted Trump the right, as President, to limit immigration for any reason. My impulse, had I been him, would have been to state that the law is clear even to laymen, and he would ignore such a ruling as being prima facie ridiculous. How can the court rule on a law clearly stating there was no judicial review on the question?

            My suspicion is that there was discussion of such a course of action in the deep Presidential counsuls, and that the desirability of getting his Supreme Court nomination confirmed acted as a major damper on Trump’s appropriate responses.

            I just got through watching Hannity. Hannity is a major bomb-thrower of the network news commentators, but he is absolutely unwilling to discuss that Islam itself contains a totally subversive doctrine.

            Talk about landmines left by Obama, the biggest is the relinquishment of the right to assign internet domains. I don’t know where that’s going under Trump, but if nothing is done, the US will be in exactly the same place as Sweden, German, Austria or Holland as far as the availability of really free discussion.

  6. In my day growing up in London there was lots prejudice about Irish, Scots, Welsh, Italians, Spanish and the non-whites from the Commonwealth. Especially black peoples. How did it all go from post WW2 Nazi hunting to being occupied and spat on by the feminazis and their fellow travelers the Muslim Nazi Christian hunters and killers? Funny old world.

  7. Muhammadism is never benign.

    The First Amendment does not bind us to our destruction by hostile throwbacks. The Followers of the Prophet are due the treatment we decide democratically. Their opinion doesn’t count. and we decide if they even have access to our courts.

    I cannot see a single upside justifying their presence. And I want them removed.

Comments are closed.