As reported here on Saturday, a “Frenchman” experienced an “Allahu Akhbar” moment in Paris that led him to stab a Filipino-German tourist to death and attack two other people with a hammer.
Much was made of the fact that the alleged perpetrator was a French citizen. His name is Armand Rajabpour-Miyandoab — very French, right? But, as Mark Steyn pointed out, his birth name was Iman Rajabpour-Miyandoab. How about that!
And now we learn that the alleged terrorist’s mother says that he has repudiated Islamic extremism any number of times.
Many thanks to Gary Fouse for translating this article from Le Figaro:
“I am no longer Muslim,” The dissembling of the terrorist Armand Rajabpour-Miyandoab
After the murder of Samuel Paty in 2020, the terrorist of Bir-Hakeim Bridge assured investigators who interrogated him that he had become “anti-Islamist” after his time in prison.
Was it a form of taqiyya? Known to the justice system for several years for his radical Islamic and psychiatric troubles, Armand Rajabpour-Miyandoab had established contacts with several Islamist terrorists who had struck France in recent years. In October 2020, after the murder of Samuel Paty, he spontaneously went to the police station to explain the fact that he had had exchanges on social media with the assailant, Abdoullakh Anzorov, two weeks earlier, according to AFP. Over the course of the police interview, he claimed to have become “anti-Islamist, radical or non-radical,” after his time in prison. According to OBS [political magazine], his mother claimed that “he had left detention with a sort of hate towards Islam because of because of what he experienced after his detention.” Above all, he felt100% French, he got out with a love for France,” she claimed when her son was released without prosecution.
In 2016, the year in which he was prosecuted for a planned attack against La Defense [business district just outside Paris], the assailant gave the same speech. “I am radicalized and self-deradicalized.” “I am no longer a Muslim, but I am still interested in what is happening there,” he said. But for the justice system, the process of radicalization seemed “fragile”: In June 2016, the young man was making searches online on “phosphorous bombs” as well as on Adel Kermiche, murderer of Father Hamel at Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray (Seine-Maritime).
“Black thoughts”
Confronted with his contradictions, he admitted in 2016 to still having “black thoughts”. “The Nice attack did not displease him” and he felt “the need to do a follow-up.” At his trial in 2018, his mother said he was “manipulated” and confided that he had a very bad experience in his conversion to Islam in 2015 through contact with the jihadist Maximilien Thibaut, through a graffiti site. His older sister spoke of his “morbid timidity.”
Sentenced on 16 March 2018 for association with terrorist criminals in the La Defense case to five years in detention, one of which was, suspended on probation, he got out in 2020 after four years of detention, according to sources close to the case. On Saturday, shortly after 9 pm, near the Bir-Hakeim Bridge spanning the Seine, he cried, “Allahu Akhbar” several times as he stabbed a German-Filipino tourist and attacked two other persons, armed with a hammer.
“Diversity is Our Strength” seems something the pig rulers in Orwell’s Animal Farm would have posted with their original seven commandments.
This phrase gets repeated regularly with such conviction and energy by the proper thinkers and politicos in North America, Western Europe, and Oceania that one hesitates to ask “Why is it our strength?” One also must ask, “Why isn’t diversity considered a strength in places other than those mentioned?” First, however, one must ask something else, “What is meant by diversity?”
A common dictionary definition of “diversity” reads, “The state of being diverse; variety; a range of different things.” Sure. One can accept that a diversity of food products is good; as is a diversity of job opportunities; vacation options; car and gun manufacturers, etc.
These are all good things, and in some cases, as in nutrition, prove “strengthening,” but, how does “diversity” get used in daily socio-politico-economic-academic-media discourse? Let us remember that as Orwell noted in a 1946 essay, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” Let’s see what’s in front of our collective nose.
Years ago, I wrote how progressives, appropriate certain words, redefine them, and then use them to shape the ideological battlefield. The classic example of that is “bolshevik” and “menshevik.” The Bolsheviks were, in fact, the Mensheviks and vice-versa. The word “bolshevik,” derived from the word meaning “majority,” got appropriated by the radicals who were in reality the minority of the old Social Democratic party. The minority labeled the majority the minority and got away with it. Clever. There are many other examples of this in history such as the insistence on calling nazis and fascists right-wing when they are clearly left-wing products,
Words have meaning, and the left is very good at altering their meaning so that over time those words no longer mean what they meant. Words, of course, comprise the bullets of intellectual debate. If you allow an opponent to select your ammo for you, well, let’s just say you are at a disadvantage.
“Diversity” must now join that legion of words appropriated and deformed almost beyond recognition by our progressive overlords. It joins “gay,” “liberal,” “male,” “female,” “fascist,” “racist,” “genocide,” and many more that now form the core of modern progressivism’s narrative.
All perfectly good words that now have become unrecognizable and put into the service of the progressive “vision.” When, for example, a college dean calls for more diversity, he or she is not calling for more conservatives and libertarians on staff to balance the school’s overwhelmingly progressive bent. Same with corporations and government; it is a call for more “ethnic” and “gender” diversity; it is a call to label anybody who questions that as a “racist,” a catch-all term of opprobrium and dismissal; it is increasingly a call for a form of “diversity” that seeks to destroy Western Civilization. It is a call for uniformity of thought.
We see in the ongoing debate over immigration in the West that the proper thinkers want ever more “diversity.” As I noted several years ago, we saw a leftist attempt to alter radically the nature of British society by encouraging immigration from poor countries and have those immigrants become dependent on and vote for Labour . . . not unlike what happened in the US with the horrid 1965 immigration law which significantly changed the source of our immigration away from Europe to the third world, emphasized “family reunification,” and created a whole new class of people dependent on the government and the Democratic party urban machine.
With the rise of leftist multiculturalism and the extension of a vast social welfare state, our once-vaunted ability to “melt” immigrants and recast them as Americans has suffered. We have begun increasingly to resemble the European nations as they struggle to retain their identity.
We have the globalist-wise ones asserting that people all over the world have a right to immigrate to the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, New Zealand, and Australia.
That wherever and whenever the cry of “Refugee!” or “Immigrant!” goes out, the West must respond with open doors and wallets.
We have to allow millions of persons to violate our national sovereignty and laws, lay claim to a vast array of taxpayer-provided benefits, and, above all, demand fundamental changes in our culture and institutions. We apparently no longer have the right to defend our borders and establish immigration laws and policies that benefit our people.
“Diversity is Our Strength.” Really? Are Japan and China weak and miserable because they are not diverse? The historical record would beg to differ. “Homogeneity is Their Strength”?
That aside, I have noted before, for example, that many if not most of the so-called Syrian refugees were neither Syrian nor refugees.
They were not particularly persecuted any more than anybody else unfortunate enough to live in a Muslim-majority country. Let us not forget that the bulk of Islam’s victims consists of Muslims, the same ones who come to our countries to instill the same barbaric Islamic regime and practices they supposedly “flee.”
I tire of comparisons of these “refugees” with Anne Frank and the millions of other Jews who fell to the Nazis. Before and during WWII, we did not take in Nazi “refugees.” We did not take in the people vowing to destroy us. The US also didn’t take many Jewish refugees either because, if you remember, the Democrats held power, and the Democratic party is the historic repository of racism and anti-Semitism in American politics.
The Nazis of today are the Muslims pouring into Europe. The Anne Franks of today are the Christian, Baha’i, and Yazidi minorities living in the hell created by Islam. That same Islam, by the way, long ago eliminated the Jews from the Muslim world. I also would note that Islam drove the Hindus, the Buddhists, and the Sikhs out of Pakistan, but we have no UN programs or refugee camps for them. We have no Hollywood celebrity calling for justice for them.
The progressives seek to destroy our culture, and replace it with . . . what exactly? The progs can’t or won’t say, but we can certainly get a glimpse of what’s to come if they succeed.
Has “diversity” of the progressive kind made Europe a stronger and a better place to live? I think that hundreds of victims of Islam in Paris, Nice, Manchester, Barcelona, Brussels, London, etc., might have an interesting answer to that.
I note that thanks to the strength derived from diversity, Swedish police advise Swedish women not to go out alone after dark and to dress “modestly” so as not to offend the “refugees” who might just have to rape and murder these women for cultural reasons.
If “diversity” is so good, why not encourage it in the Muslim world? Let’s build churches in Mecca! How about that?
Why not more diversity in Nigeria? Perhaps Mexico should diversify its demographics by taking in hundreds of thousands of “refugees” from the Middle East and Africa, and not funneling them northward?
The same progs who worry about cultural contamination by missionaries of an isolated tribe in the Amazonian forest have no problem turning vast swathes of our cities into “no-go” zones ruled by the practitioners of Sharia and the other blessings of the Religion of Peace.
Opposition to the progressive concept of “diversity” has nothing to do with race, a boring concept that tells you little useful about a person. Melanin levels have no bearing on the worth of an individual.
A typical Caribbean person has much more in common with a typical North American person, regardless of color, than does a white Iranian, Palestinian, or Syrian.
The issue is culture. The overwhelming majority of traditional immigrants to the US, for example, came from “diverse” backgrounds but within a cultural range framed by Judeo-Christian concepts. Islamic culture is not within that range, and, unlike Buddhism or Hinduism, is openly hostile to our culture and its values. We have the right to defend ourselves from that sort of “diversity,” pace PM Trudeau and Hollywood.
Insightful.
Irish Rebel Abroad.
For a long time, I have suspected “Diversity is our strength.” meant your diversity which collectively makes you weak makes us strong. Somewhat related to divide and conquer. No defector has ever come out and confirmed that. I have the same kind of feelings wherever someone says “our democracy.”.
Diversity/Multiculturalism = Balkanization = Massive bloodshed, history has demonstrated this time immortal. This is no different, at some point the European man will say enough is enough and makes the Serbs and Croats blush with envy until none are left.
The sub Sahara African and most blacks are one gene removed from the ape and an 85 IQ does not make them equal to Caucasoids and Mongoloids. So there goes that theory out the window.
Does this mean he lied to gain early release and continue his jihad?
I can’t understand it …..
aLL CULTURES ARE EQUAL. iTS JUST THAT MANY NEVER DEVELOPED A WRITTEN LANGUAGE, THE WHEEL; art that advanced beyond cave paintings, human sacrifice; guilt determined by trial by combat (a wonderful concept a far in advance of what we see in western justice systems); music; even navigation. By diversity is our strength said the Marxists. They need to man their gulags.
There ain’t no unity in diversity, there is only unity in homogeneity.