advantage20
High-Rev Hero
It's already happening: White "progressive" leftists are actually more vocal in the political/media/charity spheres in defending the interests of ethnic minorities against "systemic racism" and "discrimination" than ethnic minority activists themselves. Until s#it hits the fan and a nationwide controversy sets in, in which case pink unicorn-minded leftists ultimately realize they haven't been seen as friends or allies all along (on average, not generalizing) other than for opportunistic reasons, and are just as likely to be targeted by the minority elements who happen to be thugs, whether in the street, at building entrances, in late night trains, or even at such rioting scenes, simply for being white French "b#tches" and "wh#res" and "f#ck France".
Even though 100+ billion euros have been poured into the urban planning of these neighborhoods over the past few decades to eliminate anything that may have resembled a slimy ghetto: new buildings, green areas, playground areas, gyms, businesses, preferential rent pricing, abundant transportation linking to the city centers, publicly funded associations managing social life and helping out with professional integration, diversity hiring incentives to businesses, etc. Until of course all of the above is being burnt down to the ground, which it is regularly.
But these mostly white woke left-wing activists are just a bunch of brainwashed useful idiots living in la-la land after all. They'd literally rather risk dying than be called anything remotely close to racist or intolerant, whether rightly or wrongly. Conversely, anyone who has lived in or has been in close contact with folk from given neighborhoods, let alone elite politicians, lobbyists, investors, legal and law enforcement professionals who have an accurate assessment of what's going on in the field, in fact anyone with eyes, a little bit of brain power and intellectual honesty, can tell that people of very different cultures oftentimes don't just wake up looking to mingle and live together, even if offered cheap rent and other incentives, and if given the choice, would rather stay within or return to their community -- which has been demonstrated by the gradual ethnic partition that's been growing within these neighborhoods, in fact the gradual decline of diversity because native people feel forced to leave. All of this doesn't necessarily imply "hatred" and "discrimination"; mixing up into extreme cultural diversity has simply caused increased friction throughout all of recorded history and there is virtually no past or present counterexample. Of course individual friendships, relationships, solidarity can be organically built from the ground up, but it cannot be forced from the top down and it still hasn't become the dominant trend despite a 60-year-old narrative pushing for the opposite.
This is the great lie of the French "republican universalism" or "republican pact" (not as in the French Republican Party, but as in the republican form of government as it's been conceptualized since the 1789 Revolution): There are no communities (ethnic, religious, gender, sexual, social class...), there are only atomized individuals selflessly adhering to the abstract republican principles (the motto "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", the tricolor flag, the principle of government of the people, by the people and for the people, the separation of State and Church...), there are no privileges, all citizens love each other a priori because they share given common values which prevents any divisiveness from settling in... In reality nothing is further from the truth: Ethnic parting and local community interests taking precedence over national interests; Government tolerating active religious groups preaching hatred and division; law enforcement being ordered to stay away from the suburbs so as to not disturb "social peace"; foreign flags being gleefully flown at demonstrations, or at weddings ironically celebrated in the name of the Republic; gigantic welfare fraud; class privileges; French celebs fiscally based abroad in order to avoid paying some of the highest taxes in the world, or actually leaving as the country gradually turns into a s#ithole; public education system heavily teaching the objectionable elements of recent history (colonization and collaboration) and actively suppressing beautiful and glorious segments of the past, etc.
This doesn't mean there can never be any ideals to aim for. But when reality doesn't just return a few disparate error signals but is actually full of evidence of the opposite, it is legitimate to at least question this model of society. And yet those who are questioning it in the name of the preservation of peace, well-being, health, safety and heritage -- also protected by the Constitution -- are being politically persecuted for being "enemies of the Republic" by the same Government institutions which are spreading the lie in the first place; i.e. a political apparatus selectively enforcing those articles of the Constitution which are the most hypocritical (and which also happen to reinforce its own dominance by shutting down any dissenting opinion that may point out its hypocrisy and challenge its legitimacy), instead of submitting itself to a balanced interpretation of the entirety of the Constitution, and most importantly, allowing fact-based free criticism, since democratic legitimacy is supposedly the entire foundation of the Republic. Or is it? Article 3 of the Constitution seems to guarantee that "The national sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their representatives and by means of the referendum. [...]"; except that it's a bunch of newspeak, since once elected, the representatives aren't bound to any of their campaign promises as they get carte blanche to pass any law they want*, and cannot be subjected to a recall for having misrepresented the people's will; while no constitutional provision allows for a nationwide popular referendum initiative to emanate from the people themselves.
(*The French Constitutional council, which is supposed to make sure that laws which are submitted to it comply with the Constitution, in fact isn't a constitutional court per se, since it is mainly composed of past prominent personalities from the political realm in general, appointed by current political leaders for a 9 year term, oftentimes with barely any legal background or if so only loosely, plus former Presidents who are ex-officio members for life -- i.e. not in the least actual magistrates; unlike for example neighboring Germany which is endowed with an exemplary Federal Constitutional Court, composed of real high-level justices with rock-solid expertise and legitimacy.)
The same could be said about other Western countries, but the French republican model is particularly striking in its deceptiveness because, unlike the British or the American models for instance, it denies the very existence of communities, when in fact any nation hosting a high level of diversity necessarily hosts a mosaic of communities. Now if the goal really were to make people of very diverse origins, cultures, religions, customs, ways of life, peacefully coexist and cooperate under one common banner despite their differences and to have them negate their communities on top of that, then an incredibly heavy emphasis should be placed on ensuring adhesion to given republican principles and French way of life in general, above any adhesion to community interests and specificities. Which implies that there be a French culture and way of life in the first place since you can't adhere to something nonexistent (but according to then candidate Macron "There is no such thing as French culture"), and which also implies stripping individuals of foreign origin of part of their identity -- good luck with that, and thoroughly enforcing given principles on the path to citizenship and subsequently as a part of public policy -- good luck with the backlash there too.
But in fact quite the opposite is being done: It is not uncommon to be called racist for raising for example the question of having to speak French in the case of family reunification from abroad (even though it has nothing to do with race, and even though social cohesion depends on this); or the question of double citizenship and one's preferred loyalty to their country of origin (even though the republican rights and duties apply to "citizens" to begin with; e.g. K. Benzema famously stated in 2006 that his dear country was Algeria and that he had chosen to play for France "for the sporting aspect", i.e. for opportunistic reasons -- the French Federation eventually stopped selecting him years later but for different reasons); or the question of certain cultural or religious customs which simply do not comply with the universalist model. Everything and more, by the Government itself or through publicly funded entities, is done to kowtow to those elements of the nation that are violating the very principles of the republican pact, while anyone pointing out this untenable inconsistency faces political persecution plus media and cultural demonization, for actually defending the law, the Constitution and ultimately the "living together" that lies at the very core of that republican pact to begin with. This schizophrenia cannot last forever, and eventually breaks apart under the weight of its inner contradictions whenever a s#itstorm like this sweeps the nation.
