Book: The Two Forms,
ed. Amazon.
salomone.marc@neuf.fr
Paris, Thursday, July 5, 2018
REFLECTION ON THE ABOLITION OF BREED IN THE CONSTITUTION
The media informs us that Parliament could delete the word "race" from Article 1 of the Constitution.
The text below is devoted to a reflection on this incomprehensible decision.
We are here before the victory of one will over another.
1) - The Constitutional Will
Article 1 of the Constitution stipulates that "France ... ensures the equality before the law of all citizens without distinction of origin, race or religion"
This formulation came from the experience of Nazism and more particularly from the internal dislocation of the French state under occupation and the conditions for the restoration of the state by democracy. The initiators of this retreat sweep these concerns offhand
This article does not ensure the constitutionality of the word race. He works with this word, taking note of its relevance in the designation of certain socio-political realities.
Today :
a- A petition mentions the "low-level ethnic cleansing" of the Jews of Sarcelles and the suburbs.
b- The President of the Republic dismisses a report, which he himself commissioned, on the grounds that "white males" can not make an inventory of the "popular neighborhoods" because they are now identified at a ethnic, or racial composition, different.
c- Trade unionists, elected officials, associations subsidized by local authorities, organize meetings based on the racial exclusivity of the members, to the exclusion or subordination of persons defined as being Caucasian.
d- The public vocabulary has completely integrated the racial ideology by slipping words: "neighborhoods", "neighborhoods", sensitive neighborhoods mean: Arab and African populations to the exclusion of the so-called "French" or "white" populations .
The eradicators of the word "race" take the pretext of the evolutions of the word and its eventful history.
On this account, we must delete the word "Freedom". Madame Rolland on the scaffold told the executioner to convey this message to the world "Liberty, what crimes are committed in your name! ".
It does not matter the historical, sociological, personal variations of the word. By this article, the Constitution ensures that equality before the law is organized indiscriminately race.
When we remove the word race from the constitution, we do not suppress the races but the indistinction of them in the exercise of equality before the law.
2) - The two aims
1- The first goal
The first aim of the suppression of the word race is to forbid the French defined as being white, and only to intervene in a public debate where henceforth the word race and its equivalents, such as ethnicity or neighborhoods, are key concepts, unavoidable categories.
2- The second goal
The second aim of suppressing the constitutional indiscretion of races as to equality before the law is to authorize ipso facto the distinction.
The suppression of the word race leads to the suppression of the indistinction of the races. It follows consecutively that races can be legally distinguished.
As a result, the indivisibility of the state is also removed. National unity is no more than a chimera.
3) - The first colonial offensive
The 1905 law is based on the indiscretion of races before the law.
If the word was erased, the French could ask for an amendment of the text to inscribe in a differentiated, distinguished way, their equality before this law according to their race.
The communitarian and antilaïque legend wants that the 1905 law only concerned the Christian religions present in metropolitan France, to the exclusion of other religions of the colonial Empire.
It's wrong.
The 1905 law applied to all religions, including those of colonized peoples, including Islam.
It was the colonial party that succeeded in 1910 in bringing out Islam and religions called indigenous.
To do this, the colonial lobby has obtained that the state makes a distinction between the races on the grounds that the races were the support of distinct legal status; that of citizenship and that of indigénat.
By this distinction, this lobby was able to realize this legal swindle which is to identify the races to religions and to obtain a distinction between the religions according to the distinct statutes of the races.
salomone.marc@neuf.fr
Paris, Thursday, July 5, 2018
REFLECTION ON THE ABOLITION OF BREED IN THE CONSTITUTION
The media informs us that Parliament could delete the word "race" from Article 1 of the Constitution.
The text below is devoted to a reflection on this incomprehensible decision.
We are here before the victory of one will over another.
1) - The Constitutional Will
Article 1 of the Constitution stipulates that "France ... ensures the equality before the law of all citizens without distinction of origin, race or religion"
This formulation came from the experience of Nazism and more particularly from the internal dislocation of the French state under occupation and the conditions for the restoration of the state by democracy. The initiators of this retreat sweep these concerns offhand
This article does not ensure the constitutionality of the word race. He works with this word, taking note of its relevance in the designation of certain socio-political realities.
Today :
a- A petition mentions the "low-level ethnic cleansing" of the Jews of Sarcelles and the suburbs.
b- The President of the Republic dismisses a report, which he himself commissioned, on the grounds that "white males" can not make an inventory of the "popular neighborhoods" because they are now identified at a ethnic, or racial composition, different.
c- Trade unionists, elected officials, associations subsidized by local authorities, organize meetings based on the racial exclusivity of the members, to the exclusion or subordination of persons defined as being Caucasian.
d- The public vocabulary has completely integrated the racial ideology by slipping words: "neighborhoods", "neighborhoods", sensitive neighborhoods mean: Arab and African populations to the exclusion of the so-called "French" or "white" populations .
The eradicators of the word "race" take the pretext of the evolutions of the word and its eventful history.
On this account, we must delete the word "Freedom". Madame Rolland on the scaffold told the executioner to convey this message to the world "Liberty, what crimes are committed in your name! ".
It does not matter the historical, sociological, personal variations of the word. By this article, the Constitution ensures that equality before the law is organized indiscriminately race.
When we remove the word race from the constitution, we do not suppress the races but the indistinction of them in the exercise of equality before the law.
2) - The two aims
1- The first goal
The first aim of the suppression of the word race is to forbid the French defined as being white, and only to intervene in a public debate where henceforth the word race and its equivalents, such as ethnicity or neighborhoods, are key concepts, unavoidable categories.
2- The second goal
The second aim of suppressing the constitutional indiscretion of races as to equality before the law is to authorize ipso facto the distinction.
The suppression of the word race leads to the suppression of the indistinction of the races. It follows consecutively that races can be legally distinguished.
As a result, the indivisibility of the state is also removed. National unity is no more than a chimera.
3) - The first colonial offensive
The 1905 law is based on the indiscretion of races before the law.
If the word was erased, the French could ask for an amendment of the text to inscribe in a differentiated, distinguished way, their equality before this law according to their race.
The communitarian and antilaïque legend wants that the 1905 law only concerned the Christian religions present in metropolitan France, to the exclusion of other religions of the colonial Empire.
It's wrong.
The 1905 law applied to all religions, including those of colonized peoples, including Islam.
It was the colonial party that succeeded in 1910 in bringing out Islam and religions called indigenous.
To do this, the colonial lobby has obtained that the state makes a distinction between the races on the grounds that the races were the support of distinct legal status; that of citizenship and that of indigénat.
By this distinction, this lobby was able to realize this legal swindle which is to identify the races to religions and to obtain a distinction between the religions according to the distinct statutes of the races.
Equality
before the law thus becomes equality before distinct laws produced by
distinctions of status attached to populations defined by their race.
For some, the law of secularism. For others, the law of religion.
It is precisely in view of the crimes to which this "racial distinction" led that the Constituent of 1946 brought this precision which is the indistinction of the races.
4) - The second colonial offensive
The reason this question may not have been discussed before 1946 is not an open-mindedness that the constituents of 1946 did not have.
The inequality of the French in front of the law instituting the secularity of the State was thus organized starting from the institutionalization of a distinction of constitutional value of the races and identification of the races with distinct religions.
The famous identification of "Arabs" with "Muslims" is par excellence a distinction that only crossed the twentieth century by the decision of the colonial party to exclude certain populations from the Republic and Citizenship and to assign them to a political religious administration.
This identification can not be used without restoring the colonial ideology.
By eradicating this indistinction of races, the eradicators first want to reconstruct in a morally positive way the separatist apparatus that worked in a morally negative way from 1910 to 1945 under the aegis of colonialism.
It is crucial to note that the communalists of today are resuscitating "colonialism" to conjure it by a cabalistic "decolonization" operation.
The communitarianism imposed by the colonial party is no longer presented as an instrument of enslavement of the target populations but as that of their emancipation, their "decolonialism".
In fact of emancipation of population, it is the offensive of an ideology which worked very well with all the forms of enslavement.
Communitarians claim to be victims of colonialism. In fact, they immerse themselves in its ideology to reproduce separatist and slave logics.
5) - The inequality of the races
To ensure the universalism of this communitarian ideology without being the turkeys of their own farce; Communitarians need a racial enemy to shoot down.
The one by which misfortune has arrived and whose defeat would ensure happiness on earth to the oppressed of good race.
It takes one to win to value others. It's the white race.
By claiming that white males do not have the legitimacy to talk about the living conditions of "neighborhood" populations, in other words other races, the President of the Republic pointed out a consequence of this emancipation of ideology. racial in the metropolis.
This legal policy based on the rejection of citizenship is necessarily organized on the basis of the inequality between racial legitimacy.
The presidential speech tells us that the white race must recognize its illegitimacy to represent other races.
The prohibition that is made, by the courts first, by the Parliament from now on, to the so-called white people to name the racial debate with the democratic tools of the French Republic, is the continuity of this disqualification of the "white males" to speak of other races; to name them to begin.
It is precisely in view of the crimes to which this "racial distinction" led that the Constituent of 1946 brought this precision which is the indistinction of the races.
4) - The second colonial offensive
The reason this question may not have been discussed before 1946 is not an open-mindedness that the constituents of 1946 did not have.
The inequality of the French in front of the law instituting the secularity of the State was thus organized starting from the institutionalization of a distinction of constitutional value of the races and identification of the races with distinct religions.
The famous identification of "Arabs" with "Muslims" is par excellence a distinction that only crossed the twentieth century by the decision of the colonial party to exclude certain populations from the Republic and Citizenship and to assign them to a political religious administration.
This identification can not be used without restoring the colonial ideology.
By eradicating this indistinction of races, the eradicators first want to reconstruct in a morally positive way the separatist apparatus that worked in a morally negative way from 1910 to 1945 under the aegis of colonialism.
It is crucial to note that the communalists of today are resuscitating "colonialism" to conjure it by a cabalistic "decolonization" operation.
The communitarianism imposed by the colonial party is no longer presented as an instrument of enslavement of the target populations but as that of their emancipation, their "decolonialism".
In fact of emancipation of population, it is the offensive of an ideology which worked very well with all the forms of enslavement.
Communitarians claim to be victims of colonialism. In fact, they immerse themselves in its ideology to reproduce separatist and slave logics.
5) - The inequality of the races
To ensure the universalism of this communitarian ideology without being the turkeys of their own farce; Communitarians need a racial enemy to shoot down.
The one by which misfortune has arrived and whose defeat would ensure happiness on earth to the oppressed of good race.
It takes one to win to value others. It's the white race.
By claiming that white males do not have the legitimacy to talk about the living conditions of "neighborhood" populations, in other words other races, the President of the Republic pointed out a consequence of this emancipation of ideology. racial in the metropolis.
This legal policy based on the rejection of citizenship is necessarily organized on the basis of the inequality between racial legitimacy.
The presidential speech tells us that the white race must recognize its illegitimacy to represent other races.
The prohibition that is made, by the courts first, by the Parliament from now on, to the so-called white people to name the racial debate with the democratic tools of the French Republic, is the continuity of this disqualification of the "white males" to speak of other races; to name them to begin.
It
reveals the subordination of public debate to the most archaic forms
of the use of the word race.
The resulting racism and anti-Semitism become provable proofs. And voila.
6) - Inequality in action
This substitution of raciality for citizenship is already in action and visible.
At least in Paris, the racialization of public or private circuits, the exclusion of people defined by their belonging to a race called white, are major visible data of public life. Especially vis-à-vis the popular classes and vulnerable groups.
The appearance of ethnicity and the religious certification of it (Ramadan) already organize a priority, or at least priority circuits, for employment, housing, social circuits, corporate training credits (Planet-Finance is very good at financing the creators of companies according to this belonging).
The racialization of public and administrative reports is already dominant to the detriment of people perceived as "white" or "French".
Since its inauguration in 2013, the Tram T3 is driven only by Arab and black staff. The few women are Arab.
On the other hand, in 2013, women called white or French, non-Muslim, bus drivers, had to support an offensive of humiliation and sexual disqualification covered by local and general management. It was necessary for them to broadcast a video on the net so that the management would like to pray to the ethnico-religious activists to postpone it until later.
At the end of June, I go to the new courthouse. Something that the dangerousness of the floor catches my attention.
In this immense all-white hall, the reception staff is exclusively black mixed with some Arabs.
It is just the encrustation of racial segregation on the place of definition of law; three times nothing.
The removal of the indistinction of races as a constitutional principle will allow this racial preemption of social activities to be organized legally.
The resulting racism and anti-Semitism become provable proofs. And voila.
6) - Inequality in action
This substitution of raciality for citizenship is already in action and visible.
At least in Paris, the racialization of public or private circuits, the exclusion of people defined by their belonging to a race called white, are major visible data of public life. Especially vis-à-vis the popular classes and vulnerable groups.
The appearance of ethnicity and the religious certification of it (Ramadan) already organize a priority, or at least priority circuits, for employment, housing, social circuits, corporate training credits (Planet-Finance is very good at financing the creators of companies according to this belonging).
The racialization of public and administrative reports is already dominant to the detriment of people perceived as "white" or "French".
Since its inauguration in 2013, the Tram T3 is driven only by Arab and black staff. The few women are Arab.
On the other hand, in 2013, women called white or French, non-Muslim, bus drivers, had to support an offensive of humiliation and sexual disqualification covered by local and general management. It was necessary for them to broadcast a video on the net so that the management would like to pray to the ethnico-religious activists to postpone it until later.
At the end of June, I go to the new courthouse. Something that the dangerousness of the floor catches my attention.
In this immense all-white hall, the reception staff is exclusively black mixed with some Arabs.
It is just the encrustation of racial segregation on the place of definition of law; three times nothing.
The removal of the indistinction of races as a constitutional principle will allow this racial preemption of social activities to be organized legally.
For the moment, what about the
Jewish populations of petitioners reported as being "ethnic
cleansing" is at "low-noise".
With the suppression of the indistinction of the races, it will become a legal and proclaimed norm.
Already, the police cases brought before the courts are neither more nor less than requests, more and more often victorious, of constitution of a duality of administrative power on the French soil.
The riots of Nantes in July 2018 are a foreseeable step in this break in the continuity of the state and the indivisibility of the Republic.
These riots make it possible to measure the acceptance, or even support, by networks of cadres of this racial policy of administrative separation.
7) - The gear
Communitarians do not only target one word or another. They aim at the deconstruction of the entire French constitutional edifice.
These are one by one all the foothills of the republican state that are erased from the Constitution.
This is a work of undermining that has lasted for years on the part of those who have never admitted either Citizenship, the Republican State, or France.
8) - Conclusion
Constitutional indiscrimination between races from the point of view of the equality of rights of each is therefore a major and decisive historical device to legally form the indivisible character of the Republic and to ensure the direction of democracy.
The suppression of the word race before that of indivisibility, then of equality, then of Republic, etc. would be a strategic defeat for the French Republic and national unity.
The French are entitled to explanations.
Marc SALOMONE
With the suppression of the indistinction of the races, it will become a legal and proclaimed norm.
Already, the police cases brought before the courts are neither more nor less than requests, more and more often victorious, of constitution of a duality of administrative power on the French soil.
The riots of Nantes in July 2018 are a foreseeable step in this break in the continuity of the state and the indivisibility of the Republic.
These riots make it possible to measure the acceptance, or even support, by networks of cadres of this racial policy of administrative separation.
7) - The gear
Communitarians do not only target one word or another. They aim at the deconstruction of the entire French constitutional edifice.
These are one by one all the foothills of the republican state that are erased from the Constitution.
This is a work of undermining that has lasted for years on the part of those who have never admitted either Citizenship, the Republican State, or France.
8) - Conclusion
Constitutional indiscrimination between races from the point of view of the equality of rights of each is therefore a major and decisive historical device to legally form the indivisible character of the Republic and to ensure the direction of democracy.
The suppression of the word race before that of indivisibility, then of equality, then of Republic, etc. would be a strategic defeat for the French Republic and national unity.
The French are entitled to explanations.
Marc SALOMONE
Livre : Les Deux Formes, éd. Amazon. / salomone.marc@neuf.fr
Paris,
le jeudi 5 juillet 2018
REFLEXION
SUR LA SUPPRESSION DU RACE DANS LA CONSTITUTION
Les
médias nous informent que le Parlement pourrait supprimer le mot
« race » de l'article 1 de la Constitution.
Le
texte qui ci-après est consacré à une réflexion sur cette
incompréhensible décision.
Nous
sommes là devant la victoire d'une volonté sur une autre.
1)-
La volonté constitutionnelle
L'art.1
de la Constitution, alinéa 1, stipule que « La
France....assure l'égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans
distinction d'origine, de race ou de religion »
Cette
formulation est venue de l'expérience du nazisme et plus
particulièrement de la dislocation interne de l’État français
sous l'occupation et des conditions du rétablissement de l’État
par la démocratie. Les initiateurs de ce recul balaient ces
préoccupations d'un revers de main
Cet
article n'assure pas la constitutionnalité du mot race. Il travail
avec ce mot en prenant acte de sa pertinence dans la désignation de
certaines réalités socio-politiques.
Aujourd'hui :
a-
Une pétition fait état de « l'épuration ethnique à bas
bruit » des juifs de Sarcelles et de banlieue.
b-
Le Président de la République écarte un rapport, qu'il a lui-même
commandé, au motif que des « mâles blancs » ne peuvent
faire un état des lieux des « quartiers populaires »
parce que ceux-ci sont identifiés désormais à une composition
ethnique, ou raciale, différente.
c-
Des syndicalistes, des élus, des associatifs subventionnés par des
collectivités territoriales, organisent des réunions fondées sur
l'exclusivité raciale des membres, à l'exclusion, ou à la
subordination, des personnes définies comme étant de race blanche.
d-
Le vocabulaire public a complètement intégré l'idéologie raciale
par des glissements de mots : « quartiers »,
« quartiers populaires », quartiers sensibles »
signifient : populations arabes et africaines à l'exclusion des
populations dites « françaises » ou « blanches ».
Les
éradicateurs du mot « race » prennent le prétexte des
évolutions du mot et de son histoire mouvementée.
A
ce compte là, il faut supprimer le mot « Liberté ».
Madame Rolland sur l’échafaud disait au bourreau de transmettre ce
message au monde « Liberté, que de crimes on commet en ton
nom ! ».
Peu
importe les variations historiques, sociologiques, personnelles, du
mot. Par cet article, la Constitution assure que l'égalité devant
la loi s'organise indistinctement des races.
Quand
on supprime le mot race de la constitution, on ne supprime pas les
races mais l'indistinction de celles-ci dans l'exercice de l'égalité
devant la loi.
2)-
Les deux buts visés
1-
Le premier but
Le
premier but de la suppression du mot race est d'interdire aux
français définis comme étant de race blanche, et à eux seuls
d'intervenir dans un débat public où désormais le mot race et ses
équivalents, tels que ethnie ou quartiers, sont des concepts clés,
des catégories incontournables.
2-
Le second but
Le
second but de la suppression de l'indistinction constitutionnelle des
races quant à l'égalité devant la loi est d'en autoriser
ipso-facto la distinction.
La
suppression du mot race entraîne la suppression de l'indistinction
des races. Il s'en suit consécutivement que les races peuvent être
légalement distinguées.
En
conséquence, l'indivisibilité de l’État est aussi supprimée.
L'unité nationale n'est plus qu'une chimère.
3)-
La première offensive coloniale
La
loi 1905 est fondée sur l'indistinction des races devant la loi.
Si
le mot était effacé, les français pourraient demander un
amendement du texte pour inscrire de façon différenciée,
distinguée, leur égalité devant cette loi selon leur race.
La
légende communautariste et antilaïque veut que la loi 1905 ne
concernait que les religions chrétiennes présentent en métropole,
à l'exclusion des autres religions de l'Empire colonial.
C'est
faux.
La
loi 1905 s'appliquait à toutes les religions, dont celles des
peuples colonisés, notamment l'islam.
C'est
le parti colonial qui a réussi en 1910 à en faire sortir l'islam et
les religions dites des indigènes.
Pour
ce faire, le lobby colonial a obtenu que l’État fasse une
distinction entre les races au motif que les races étaient le
support de statuts juridiques distincts ; celui de la
citoyenneté et celui de l'indigénat.
Par
cette distinction, ce lobby a pu réaliser cette escroquerie
juridique qui est d'identifier les races à des religions et obtenir
une distinction entre les religions selon les statuts distincts des
races.
L'égalité
devant la loi devient ainsi l'égalité devant des lois distinctes
produites par des distinctions de statuts attachés à des
populations définies par leur race. Pour les uns la loi de la
laïcité. Pour les autres, la loi de la religion.
C'est
précisément au vu des crimes auxquels a conduit cette « distinction
entre les races » que le Constituant de 1946 a apporté cette
précision qu'est l'indistinction des races.
4)-
La seconde offensive coloniale
La
raison pour laquelle cette question a pu ne pas être discutée avant
1946 n'est pas une ouverture d'esprit que n'avaient pas les
constituants de 1946.
L'inégalité
des français devant la loi instituant la laïcité de l’État
s'est donc organisée à partir de l'institutionnalisation d'une
distinction de valeur constitutionnelle des races et d'identification
des races à des religions distinctes.
La
fameuse identification des « arabes » aux « musulmans »
est par excellence une distinction qui n'a traversé le 20ème siècle
que par la décision du parti colonial d'exclure certaines
populations de la République et de la Citoyenneté et de les
assigner à une politique administrative religieuse.
On
ne peut recourir à cette identification sans restaurer l'idéologie
coloniale.
En
supprimant cette indistinction des races, les éradicateurs veulent
d'abord reconstruire de façon moralement positive le dispositif
séparatiste qui a fonctionné de façon moralement négative de 1910
à 1945 sous l'égide du colonialisme.
Il
est crucial de constater que les communautaristes d'aujourd'hui
ressuscitent le « colonialisme » pour le conjurer par une
opération cabalistique de « décolonisation ».
Le
communautarisme imposé par le parti colonial n'est plus présenté
comme un instrument d'asservissement des populations visées mais
comme celui de leur émancipation, de leur « décolonialisme ».
En
fait d'émancipation de population, c'est l'offensive d'une idéologie
qui a fort bien fonctionné avec toutes les formes d'asservissement.
Les
communautaristes prétendent être des victimes du colonialisme. En
fait, ils s'imprègnent de son idéologie pour en reproduire les
logiques séparatistes et esclavagistes.
5)-
L'inégalité des races
Pour
assurer l'universalisme de cette idéologie communautariste sans être
les dindons de leur propre farce ; les communautaristes ont
besoin d'un ennemi racial à abattre.
Celui
par lequel le malheur est arrivé et dont la défaite assurerait le
bonheur sur terre aux opprimés de bonne race.
Il
en faut une qui trinque pour valoriser les autres. C'est la race
blanche.
En
affirmant que les mâles blancs n'ont pas la légitimité pour parler
des conditions de vie des populations des « quartiers »,
autrement dit d'autres races, M. le Président de la République a
signalé une conséquence de cette émancipation de l'idéologie
raciale dans la métropole.
Cette
politique juridique fondée sur le refus de la citoyenneté
s'organise nécessairement à partir de l'inégalité entres les
légitimités raciales.
La
parole présidentielle nous dit que la race blanche doit reconnaître
son illégitimité à représenter d'autres races.
L'interdiction
qui est faite, par les tribunaux d'abord, par le Parlement désormais,
aux personnes dites de race blanche de nommer le débat racial avec
les outils démocratiques de la République française, est la
continuité de cette disqualification des « mâles blancs »
à parler des autres races ; à les nommer pour commencer.
Il
en ressort la subordination du débat public aux formes les plus
archaïques de l'usage du mot race.
Les
racismes et antisémitismes qui en résultent deviennent des preuves
prouvantes. Et le tour est joué.
6)-
L'inégalité en acte
Cette
substitution de la racialité à la citoyenneté est déjà en acte
et visible.
Au
moins à Paris, la racialisation des circuits publics ou privés,
l'exclusion des personnes définies par leur appartenance à une race
dite blanche, sont des données visibles majeures de la vie publique.
Tout particulièrement vis-à-vis des classes populaires et des
groupes vulnérables.
L'apparence
de l'appartenance ethnique et la certification religieuse de celle-ci
(ramadan) organisent déjà une priorité, ou du moins des circuits
prioritaires, pour l'emploi, le logement, les circuits sociaux, les
crédits de formation d'entreprise (Planet-Finance se fait fort de
financer les créateurs d'entreprise selon cette appartenance).
La
racialisation des rapports publics et administratifs est déjà
dominante au détriment des personnes perçues comme « blanches »
ou « françaises ».
Depuis
son inauguration en 2013, le Tram T3 n'est conduit que par du
personnel arabe et noir. Les rares femmes sont arabes.
Par
contre, en 2013, les femmes dites blanches ou françaises, non
musulmanes, conductrices de bus, ont dû soutenir une offensive
d'humiliation et de disqualification sexuée couverte par les
directions locales et générale. Il leur a fallu diffuser une vidéo
sur le net pour que la direction veuille bien prier les militants
ethnico-religieux de remettre la suite à plus tard.
Fin
juin, je vais au nouveau Palais de justice. Quelque chose que la
dangerosité du parquet retient mon attention.
Dans
cet immense hall tout blanc, le personnel d’accueil est
exclusivement noir mêlé de quelques d'arabes.
C'est
juste l'incrustation de la ségrégation raciale sur le lieu de
définition du droit ; trois fois rien.
La
suppression de l'indistinction des races comme principe
constitutionnel permettra à cette préemption raciale des activités
sociales de s'organiser légalement.
Pour
l'instant, ce qu'au sujet des populations juives des pétitionnaires
ont signalé comme étant une « épuration ethnique » se
fait à « bas-bruit ».
Avec
la suppression de l'indistinction des races, elle deviendra une norme
légale et proclamée.
Déjà,
les affaires de police portées devant les tribunaux ne sont ni plus
ni moins que des demandes, de plus en plus souvent victorieuses, de
constitution d'une dualité de pouvoir administratif sur le sol
français.
Les
émeutes de Nantes de juillet 2018 sont une étape prévisible de
cette rupture de la continuité de l’État et d'indivisibilité de
la République.
Ces
émeutes permettent de mesurer l'acceptation, voire le soutien, par
des réseaux de cadres de cette politique raciale de séparation
administrative.
7)-
L'engrenage
Les
communautaristes ne visent pas seulement tel ou tel mot. Ils visent
la déconstruction de tout l'édifice constitutionnel français.
Ce
sont un à un tous les contreforts de l’État républicain qui sont
effacés de la Constitution.
C'est
un travail de sape qui dure depuis des années de la part de ceux qui
n'ont jamais admis ni la Citoyenneté, ni l’État républicain, ni
la France.
8)-
Conclusion
L'indistinction
constitutionnelle entre les races du point de vu de l'égalité en
droit de chacun est donc un dispositif historique majeur, décisif,
pour former juridiquement le caractère indivisible de la République
et assurer la direction de la démocratie.
La
suppression du mot race avant celui d'indivisibilité, puis
d'égalité, puis de République, etc. serait une défaite
stratégique pour la République française et l'unité nationale.
Les
français ont droit à des explications.
Marc
SALOMONE
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire