From time to time, France’s National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Insee) offers a glimpse of the ethnic composition of French society. The study, “Being born in France to an immigrant parent” (Être né en France d’un parent immigré), published in February 2017, is one of them.

Like few other glimpses, the Insee study offers a partial view of the ethnic composition of the French population. A statistical breakdown — with the answer to the perennial question: how many Muslims in France? — would be perceived as discriminatory and outrageous. Given France’s “integration model,” nobody should dare identify people by their origins, religion, color of skin and so on. A Frenchman is a Frenchman, whatever the color of his skin or his religion, and any measurement of the sub-Saharan population — for example, their level of education, that of their children, the type of jobs their parents are doing, how many times they go to mosque or if they have spent time in prison — is illegal, discriminatory and racist. Sub-Saharan populations must disappear in aggregate data about French people.

The study, however, provides some telling information. In 2015, 7.3 million people born in France had at least one immigrant parent (11% of the population). Of these 7.3 million people, 45% are of European origin, most of whom are children of immigrants who arrived in France from Spain (8%) or Italy (12%) as early as the 1930s, or from Portugal in the 1970s onwards. One can assume, although it is not written in the study, that these people are of Christian origin.

Another group is composed of Africans. 42% of the 7.3 million children born in France to an immigrant parent are of African background, mainly North Africa. They came from Algeria (15%), Morocco (11%), Tunisia (5%) and sub-Saharan Africa (11%). Although it is also not specified in the study, it would seem that the great majority are Muslim.

Another group, children from Turkish migrant families, represent 4% of the 7.3 million. These people are classified as Asian; they are not included in the African and Muslim group. Most of these Turks are also presumably Muslim.

A conclusion therefore would assume that 46% of the descendants of immigrants are Muslim and 45% are Christian. The remaining 9% are from East Asia or the Americas.

A new study from France’s National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies, “Being born in France to an immigrant parent,” provides some telling information on the ethnic composition of French society.

Criticizing the limited data of this study, Michèle Tribalat, a French demographer, published some personal conclusions in Atlántico, a news website. First, Tribalat expressed her regrets “not to have the population figures of persons of foreign origin for two generations”. But, she said, it is not so difficult to compile it one’s self.

“If we add the two generations (immigrants and children of immigrants), this gives a total of 13.5 million, or 20.4% of the population. Thus, we have slightly more than one inhabitant out of five of foreign origin, across two generations, in 2015”.

Asked by Gatestone how she came to the 13.5 million figure, she replied:

“Very simple. I added the 2015 migrant population (6.2 million) to the Insee’s 7.3 million children of immigrants, and it came to 13.5 million.”

In her Atlántico article, Tribalat maintains that more important than the 2015 data picture, is the growth-rate that led to the 2015 figure. Tribalat calculated her own estimates of this growth, with starting points in the years 1986, 1999 and 2011, coming up with figures of a stunningly fast growth for the number of migrants over two generations: the 13.2 million migrants of 2015 (20.5%; 300,000 that are “missing” are from French overseas territories), were 12.1 million four years earlier and 9.8 million in 1999. In other words, 19.2% in 2011 and 16.8% in 1999. The population of French persons of foreign origin would therefore have increased, when looking at two generations, by 9% between 2011 and 2015 alone.

For the same period, French children born in France to parents born in France increased by only 2.6%, writes Tribalat.

Consequently, France’s population is increasing significantly only because of immigration. But which immigration? Christian or Muslim? Tribalat continues:

“I showed that the annual average rate of increase of immigrants was almost zero between 1975 and 1999. But it is not the same story from 1999-2015. … The population of sub-Saharan origin is the one that grows more quickly. In four years (2011-2015), looking at two-generations (immigrants and children of immigrants), the sub-Saharan population seems to have increased by 43%. This population is extremely young. In 2015, 80% of the children of sub-Saharan immigrants are under 25 years of age”. (Author’s emphasis)

These conclusions are confirmed by another Insee study, “Demography of the descendants of immigrants” (Démographie des descendants d’immigrés), published in 2014.

“The Turkish and sub-Saharan African population is growing at an extremely rapid rate (which could lead to a doubling in less than 10 years if this continues)…. The total fertility rate of women born in Turkey is approximately 3, as it is for women born in sub-Saharan Africa. It is closer to 3.5 for women born in North Africa, while it is only 2 for women born in Europe, especially in France.”

In other words, if the Muslim population of France can be estimated at around 6 million today, it could grow to 12 million by 2020-2025.

This figure does even not take into consideration the Muslim population that immigrated to France from North Africa in the 1960s and early 1970s. There are a few million of them — nobody knows how many exactly. They became French very early, and for demographers, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are not regarded as immigrants anymore. These Muslims are, rather, integrated into statistics as French citizens born of French parents. They are Muslim, but under the statistics radar.

France’s Muslim population could quickly grow to close to 15-17 million, but no one can know precisely unless the law prohibiting the official collection of ethnic data is changed.

These questions are not spoken about openly in the fierce pre-election presidential debate raging in France. The question is not politically correct. But in these times of expanding Islamism, they weigh silently in favor of Marine Le Pen.

Yves Mamou is a journalist and author based in France. He worked for two decades for the daily, Le Monde, before his retirement.

February 2, 2017: A “no-go zone” in the eastern suburbs of Paris. Police on patrol hear screams. They decide to check. While there, a young man insults them. They decide to arrest him. He hits them. A fight starts. He accuses a policeman of having raped him with a police baton. A police investigation quickly establishes that the young man was not raped. But it is too late; a toxic process has begun.

Without waiting for any further evidence, the French Interior Minister says that the police officers have “behaved badly.” He adds that “police misconduct must be condemned”. French President François Hollande goes to the hospital to give his support to the young man. The president says he has conducted himself in a “dignified and responsible manner.” The next day, a demonstration against the police is cobbled together. The demonstration turns into a riot.

Riots continue for more than two weeks. They affect more than twenty cities throughout France. They spread to the heart of Paris. Dozens of cars are torched. Shops and restaurants are looted. Official buildings and police stations are attacked.

The police are ordered not to intervene. They do what they are told to do. Few arrests take place.

Police look on as a car, which was destroyed by rioters in a Paris suburb, is removed on February 13, 2017. (Image source: Ruptly video screenshot)

Calm is slowly returning, but the riots can easily start again. France is a country at the mercy of large-scale uprisings. They can explode anytime, anyplace. French leaders know it, and find refuge in cowardice.

What is happening is the result of a corrosive development initiated five decades ago. In the 1960s, after the war in Algeria, President Charles de Gaulle directed the country toward closer relations with Arab and Muslim states.

Migratory flows of “guest workers” from Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, which had started a few years earlier, sharply increased. Immigrants were not encouraged to integrate. Everyone assumed they would return home at the end of their employment contracts. They were settled in the outskirts of big cities. The economy was dynamic, with strong job creation. It seemed there would be no problems.

Twenty years later, serious difficulties became obvious. The immigrants now numbered millions. People from sub-Saharan Africa joined those coming from Arab nations. Neighborhoods made up of just Arabs and Africans were formed. The economy had slowed down and mass unemployment settled in. But the jobless immigrants did not go back home, instead relying on social benefits. Integration still did not exist. Although many of these new arrivals had become French citizens, they often sounded resentful of France and the West. Political agitators started teaching them to detest Western civilization. Violent gangs of young Arabs and Africans began to form. Clashes with police were common. Often, when a gang member was wounded, political agitators would help to incite more violence.

The situation grew difficult to control. But nothing was done to fix it; quite the opposite.

In 1984, a movement called SOS Racisme was created by Trotskyist militants, and began to define any criticism of immigration as “racist”. Major leftist parties supported SOS Racism. They seem to have thought that by accusing their political opponents of racism, they could attract the votes of “new citizens.” The presence of Islamist agitators, alongside agitators in Arab and African neighborhoods, plus the emergence of anti-Western Islamic discourse, alarmed many observers. SOS Racisme immediately designated those who spoke of Islamic danger as “Islamophobic racists.”

In 1990, a law drafted by a Communist lawmaker, Jean-Claude Gayssot, was passed. It stipulated that “any discrimination based on ethnicity, nation, race or religion is prohibited.” Since then, this law has been used to criminalize any criticism of Arab and African delinquency, any question on immigration from the Muslim world, any negative analysis of Islam. Many writers have been fined, and most “politically incorrect” books on those topics have disappeared from bookshops.

The French government asked the media to obey the “Gayssot law.” It also asked that history textbooks be rewritten to include chapters on the crimes committed by the West against Muslims, and on the “essential contribution” of Islam to humanity.

In 2002, the situation in the country became dramatic.

Arab and African neighborhoods had become “no-go zones.” Radical Islam was widespread and Islamist attacks began. Dozens of cars would be torched each week. Muslim anti-Semitism was rising rapidly and led to an increase in anti-Jewish attacks. SOS Racisme and other anti-racist organizations were silent on Muslim anti-Semitism. Unwilling to be accused of “Islamophobic racism,” organizations tasked with fighting against anti-Semitism were also silent.

A book, The Lost Territories of the Republic, by Georges Bensoussan (under the pen-name “Emmanuel Brenner”), was released. It depicted accurately what was going on. It spoke of the sweeping hatred for the West among young people of immigrant origin, and of the full-blown hatred of Jews among young Muslims. It said that “no-go zones” were on the edge of secession and no longer a part of French territory. The mainstream media ignored the book.

Three years later, in October 2005, riots broke out across the country. More than 9,000 cars were torched. Hundreds of stores, supermarkets and shopping centers were looted and destroyed. Dozens of police officers were seriously injured. The storm stopped when the government reached an agreement to make peace with Muslim associations. Power had changed hands.

Since then, the state scarcely maintains law and order in France.

Another book, A Submissive France, was recently published by the man who had written The Lost Territories of the Republic fifteen years before, the historian Georges Bensoussan. Now, the French Republic itself is a lost territory.

“No go zones” are no longer French territory. Radical Islam and the hatred of the West reign among Muslim populations and, more broadly, among populations of immigrant origin. Muslim anti-Semitism makes life unbearable for Jews who have not yet left France and who cannot afford to relocate to areas where Jews are not yet threatened: the 16^th and 17^th arrondissements, the Beverly Hills of Paris; or the city of Neuilly, a wealthy suburb of Paris.

Everywhere in France, high school teachers go to work with a Qur’an in their hands, to make sure that what they say in class does not contradict the sacred book of Islam.

All history textbooks are “Islamically correct”. One-third of the French Muslims say they want to live according to Islamic sharia law and not according to the laws of France.

In hospitals, Muslims are increasingly asking to be treated by Muslim doctors only, and refusing to let their wives be treated by male doctors.

Attacks on police officers occur on a daily basis. The police have orders: they must not enter “no-go zones.” They must not respond to insults and threats. They must flee if they are assaulted. Sometime, they do not have time to flee.

In October 2016, two policemen were burned alive in their car in Viry-Châtillon, south of Paris. In January 2017, three police officers fell into an ambush and were stabbed in in Bobigny, east of Paris.

Police officers did respond to the incident on February 2. When a man became violent, they did not flee. The French government could only find them guilty, accusing a police officer of raping his attacker. But the police officer was not guilty of rape; he was guilty of simply having intervened. The French government also found his colleagues guilty. They were all accused of “violence.” They now will have to go to court.

The young man who destroyed the lives of these police officers is not being accused of anything. In all the “no go zones,” he is now a hero. Mainstream television channels ask him for interviews. His name is Theodore, or Theo. “Justice for Theo” stickers are everywhere. Banners sporting his name are waved at demonstrations. Rioters shout his name along with the name of Allah.

A few journalists have said that he is not a hero; that “no go zones” are reservoirs of anti-Western, anti-Semitic and anti-French hatred ready to burst. But these journalists are also cautious. They know they might be prosecuted.

Georges Bensoussan, the Moroccan-born author of The Lost Territories of the Republic and of A Submissive France — is currently on trial. A complaint was filed against him by the Collective against Islamophobia in France (CCIF). They are suing him for having said: “Today we are witnessing a different people in the French nation; they are causing the return of a number of democratic values to which we adhere,” and “This visceral anti-Semitism, proven by the Fondapol Survey last year, cannot remain in silence.”

Judges were immediately assigned to the case. The verdict is due March 5. If Bensoussan is not sentenced, the CCIF will be sure to appeal. Bensoussan is a man from the left. He is a member of “J Call” (European Jewish Call for Reason), a movement criticizing “Israel’s occupation of the West Bank”, and asking for “the creation of a viable Palestinian state”. Even such positions are no longer enough to protect him. The International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA), an organization founded in 1927 to combat anti-Semitism, supported CCIF. Organizations ostensibly fighting anti-Semitism in France instead seem to be clinging to futile fantasies of appeasing their tormentors. They never mention Muslim anti-Semitism, and have now fully joined the fight against “Islamophobic racism” against Jewish authors such as Georges Bensoussan.

Elections will be held in France, in April. The Socialist Party chose a candidate, Benoît Hamon, supported by the UOIF (Union of Islamic Organizations of France), the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The far-left and the communists will also have a candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, an unconditional admirer of Lenin, Hugo Chavez and Yasser Arafat, and a resolute enemy of Israel.

Hamon and Mélenchon will likely each receive about 15% of the vote.

A third candidate from the left, Emmanuel Macron, is a former member of the French Socialist government under François Hollande. To attract the Muslim vote, Macron went to Algeria and said that French colonization was a “crime against humanity.” He stated several times that French culture does not exist, and that Western culture does not exist either; but he added that Arab Muslim culture must have “its place” in France.

The conservative candidate, François Fillon, promises to fight Sunni Islam, but says he wants a “strong alliance” between France, Iran’s mullahs and Hezbollah. His reputation is badly damaged by a “fake jobs” scandal. He has attacked France’s Jewish community, presumably to secure the Muslim vote. He said it does not respect “all the rules of the Republic.” He has said that Israel represents a threat to world peace.

Marine Le Pen, the far-right candidate of the National Front, may seem the most determined to straighten France out, but her economic program is as self-defeatingly Marxist as that of Hamon or Mélenchon. Le Pen also wants to attract the Muslim electorate. She went to Cairo a few months ago to meet the Grand Imam of al-Azhar. Like all other French political parties, her party supported the anti-Israeli positions of former U.S. President Barack Obama, as well as UN Security Council Resolution 2334, passed last year on December 23.

Le Pen will likely win the first round of the two-round election, but will almost certainly be defeated in the second round: all the other candidates will gather behind the candidate facing her, probably Macron or Fillon (if he still is in the race). Le Pen might think that in five years the situation in France will be even worse, and that then she will have a serious chance to be elected President.

A few months ago, in a recently published book, Civil War is Coming, the French columnist Ivan Rioufol wrote: “The danger is not the National Front, which is only the expression of the anger of an abandoned people. The danger is the ever-closer links between leftism and Islamism…. The danger must be stopped.”

Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

France is taking steps to de-radicalize its mosques in the hopes of preventing the radicalization of its Muslim community.

Since December, the French government, acting under expanded emergency powers, has shut down twenty mosques for preaching Salafism, a strict and highly politicized Sunni interpretation of Islam. Groups such as ISIS adhere to Salafism. About 120 of France’s 2,500 mosques and prayer halls are considered Salafist.

A little background: the United States’ 9/11 Commission found that Saudi Arabia uses charity and “government funds to spread Wahhabi [a Saudi form of Salafism] beliefs throughout the world, including in mosques and schools.” The technique of spreading Wahhabi-Salafi beliefs by funding mosques and, crucially, those who preach in them, has occurred in places as far-flung as Pakistan, Senegal, and Germany.

In Belgium, the Saudis remade an Oriental pavilion into the Great Mosque of Brussels. They continue to fund many Belgian clerics whose “radical Salafist teachings came from a very different tradition” from the Islam of the Muslim communities who immigrated to Belgium from Morocco and Turkey. Gulf charity funds likewise radicalized the previously tolerant Muslim community in Kosovo. Both countries are among the largest sources of ISIS fighters in Europe. Belgium has provided more fighters per capita than any other country in Western Europe; Kosovo is the overall second-largest European country of origin, again, per capita.

The problem is not that foreign charities directly subsidize jihadi activities, but that they promote a highly aggressive ideology with a political agenda, whose followers are more likely to take the next step into violent action. In trying to contain radical Islam, Kosovar authorities have arrested 14 imams and shut down 19 Muslim organizations for acting against the constitution, inciting hatred and recruiting for terrorism. Belgium has arrested militant preacher Fouad Belkacem and threatened to close radical mosques in the Molenbeek district of Brussels.

The Saudis have also funded mosques in France, including one in Nice that opened in July (two weeks before the Bastille Day attack) after a 14-year struggle. The city’s former mayor, Christian Estrosi, had accused building owner Sheikh Saleh bin Abdulaziz, who is Saudi Arabia’s Islamic Affairs Minister, of “advocating sharia.”

A Saudi-funded mosque opened in Nice in July (two weeks before the Bastille Day attack) after a 14-year struggle.(Image source: Institut Niçois En-nour)

France has had a long-running debate about foreign influence over its Islamic institutions. A Senate report published on July 5, 2016, recommended monitoring foreign funds by having them channeled through a dedicated foundation. It also called for setting up a training program sufficient to train the country’s Muslim religious leaders that is “adapted to the French context.” Currently, France has two small institutions qualified to train imams, which are inadequate to meet the community’s needs. Therefore, about 300 imams were hired from abroad. The foreign imams are not well-adapted to France, and many of them speak French poorly, if at all. Finally, the report cautioned that there is an inherent tension between the government’s desire for more control over French Islam and the country’s legal separation of “church” and state.

Apparently in response to the report’s recommendations, on July 29, Prime Minister Manuel Valls announced he favors imposing a temporary ban on foreign funding of mosques. Valls also urged that imams be locally– rather than foreign-trained.

On August 1, the French Muslim Council announced the creation of a new foundation to help finance French mosques and keep out radical benefactors. Council head Anouar Kbibech made the announcement after meeting with Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve. Cazeneuve, who announced the planned closure of 20 mosques after the same meeting, said he wants the foundation to launch in October, and added that the government is working to assure “total transparency” in mosque financing.

The announcement was welcomed by France’s political opposition, although politicians have expressed concern that the de-radicalization efforts will undermine France’s strict policy of separating church and state, called laïcité. Democratic Movement party president, François Bayrou, and Socialist party member, Julien Dray, appeared to endorse the proposal, stating, “Funding is an urgent issue for French society. The financing of mosques is a problem since it is financed by foreign powers.”

Roger Karoutchi, spokesman of the French Republican party, also expressed support, but cautioned “there should be no renunciation of the 1905 Act [separating church and state].”

Cazeneuve likewise stated that the government seeks a way forward that will “strictly respect the secular principles of the Republic.”

The main practical problem to implementing the new foundation appears to be funding. State money may not be used to fund religious institutions directly. Bayrou, Dray, and others have advocated raising money by taxing halal food, but that idea is controversial. Among other things, it may embroil France’s Muslim community in a dispute to create a commonly recognized standard about what constitutes halal food.

Thus, France has opened a new front in its battle against Islamist terrorism. Fighting terrorism is not just the responsibility of the government, the prime minister said, but rather all of society needs to get involved. Salafism “has no place in France,” Valls stated, adding that France needs to “invent a new relationship with Islam.” In essence, the French government is trying to promote the development of a “kinder, gentler” form of Islam in France by limiting the influence of foreign Salafists.

Johanna Markind is an attorney who writes about public policy and criminal justice.

France is in turmoil. “Migrants” arriving from Africa and the Middle East sow disorder and insecurity in many cities. The huge slum commonly known as the “jungle of Calais” has just been dismantled, but other slums are being created each day. In eastern Paris, streets have been covered with corrugated sheets, oilcloth and disjointed boards. Violence is commonplace. France’s 572 “no-go zones,” officially defined as “sensitive urban areas”, continue to grow, and police officers who approach them often suffer the consequences. Recently, a police car drove into an ambush and was torched while the police were prevented from getting out. If attacked, police officers are told by their superiors to flee rather than retaliate. Many police officers, angry at having to behave like cowards, have organized demonstrations. No terrorist attacks have taken place since the slaughter of a priest in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray on July 26, 2016, but intelligence services see that jihadists have returned from the Middle East and are ready to act, and that riots may break out anywhere, any time, on any pretext.

Although overwhelmed by a domestic situation it barely controls, the French government still intervenes in the world affairs: a “Palestinian state” is still its favorite cause, Israel its favorite scapegoat.

Last Spring, even though both France and the Palestinian territories were in terrible shape, French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault anyway declared that it was “urgent” to relaunch the “peace process” and create a Palestinian state. France therefore convened an international conference, held in Paris on June 3. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians were invited to it. The conference was a flop. It concluded with a vapid statement about the “imperative necessity” to go “forward.”

France did not stop there. The government then decided to organize a new conference in December. This time, with Israel and the Palestinians. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, noting that Israel does not need intermediaries, refused the invitation. Palestinian leaders accepted. Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian Authority spokesman congratulated France, adding, not surprisingly, that the Palestinian Authority had “suggested” the idea to the French.

Now Donald Trump is the U.S. president-elect, and Newt Gingrich is likely to play a key role in the Trump Administration. Gingrich said a few years ago that there is no such a thing as a Palestinian people, and added last week that settlements are in no way an obstacle to peace. As such, the December conference looks as if it might be another failure.

French diplomats nevertheless are working with Palestinian officials on a UN resolution to recognize a Palestinian State inside the “1967 borders” (the 1949 armistice lines), but without any peace treaty. They are apparently hoping that outgoing U.S. President Barack Obama will not use the American veto at the Security Council, allowing the passage of the resolution. It is not certain at all that Barack Obama will want to end his presidency on a gesture so openly subversive. It is almost certain that France will fail there too. Again.

For many years, France seems to have built its entire foreign policy on aligning itself with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC): 56 Islamic countries plus the Palestinians. Originally, France’s dreams might have been of displacing America as a world power, accessing inexpensive oil, business deals with oil-rich Islamic states, and the prayer of no domestic terrorism. All four have been washouts. It is also obvious that France has more urgent problems to solve.

France persists because it is desperately trying to limit problems that probably cannot be solved.

In the 1950s, France was different from what it is now. It was a friend of Israel. The “Palestinian cause” did not exist. The war in Algeria was raging, and a large majority of French politicians would not even have shaken hands with unrepentant terrorists.

Everything changed with the end of the Algerian war. Charles de Gaulle handed Algeria over to a terrorist movement called the National Liberation Front. He then proceeded to create a strategic reorientation of the France’s foreign policy, unveiling what he called the “Arab policy of France.”

France signed trade and military agreements with various Arab dictatorships. To seduce its new friends, it eagerly adopted an anti-Israel policy. When, in the 1970s, terrorism in the form of airplane hijackings was invented by the Palestinians, and with the murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, “the Palestinians” all at once became a “sacred cause” and a useful tool for leverage in the Arab world, France, adopting the “cause,” became rigidly pro-Palestinian.

The Palestinians began to use international terrorism, and France chose to accept this terrorism so long as France was not affected. At the same time, France welcomed mass-immigration from the Arab-Muslim world, evidently as part of a Muslim wish to expand Islam. The Muslim population has since grown in numbers, while failing to assimilate.

France did not perceive it at the time, but it placed itself in a trap, and the trap is now closing.

France’s Muslim population seems anti-French in terms of Judeo-Christian, Enlightenment values, and pro-French only to the extent that France submits to the demands of Islam. As France’s Muslims are also pro-Palestinian, theoretically there should have been no problem. But France underestimated the effects of the rise of extremist Islam in the Muslim world and beyond.

More and more, French Muslims consider themselves Muslim first. Many claim that the West is at war with Islam; they see France and Israel as part of the West, so they are at war with them both. They see that France is anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, but they also see that several French politicians maintain ties with Israel, so they likely think that France is not anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian enough.

They see that France tolerates Palestinian terrorism, and seem not to understand why France would fight Islamic terrorism in other places.

To please its Muslims, the French government may believe it has no choice other than to be as pro-Palestinian and as anti-Israel as possible — even though it looks as if this policy is failing badly in the polls.

The French government undoubtedly sees that it cannot prevent what increasingly looks like a looming disaster. This disaster is already taking place.

Perhaps France’s current government is hoping that it might delay the disaster a bit and avoid a civil war. Perhaps, they might hope, the “no go zones” will not explode — at least on their watch.

France today has six million Muslims, 10% of its population, and the percentage is growing. Polls show that one-third of French Muslims want the full application of Islamic sharia law. They also show that the overwhelming majority of French Muslims support jihad, and especially jihad against Israel, a country they would like to see erased from the face of earth.

The leading French Muslim organization, the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, is the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement that should be listed as a terrorist organization for its open wishes to overthrow Western governments.

The Muslim Brotherhood is primarily financed by Qatar, a country that invests heavily in France — and that has the comfort of its very own U.S. airbase.

Jews are leaving France in record numbers, and these departures do not stop. Sammy Ghozlan, President of the National Bureau of Vigilance against Anti-Semitism, repeated for many years that, “It is better to leave than flee.” He was mugged. His car was torched. He left, and now lives in Israel.

The rest of the French population clearly sees the extreme seriousness of what is happening. Some of them are angry and in a state of revolt; others seem resigned to the worst: an Islamist takeover of Europe.

The next French elections will take place in May 2017. French President François Hollande has lost all credibility and has no chance of being reelected. Whoever comes to power will have a difficult task.

The French seem to have lost confidence in Nicolas Sarkozy, so they will probably choose between Marine Le Pen, Alain Juppé or François Fillon.

Marine Le Pen is the candidate of the far-right National Front.

Alain Juppé is the mayor of Bordeaux, and often campaigns in the company of Tareq Oubrou, imam of the city. Until recently, Tareq Oubrou was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Alain Juppé seems to believe that the present disorder will calm down if France fully submits.

François Fillon will probably be the moderate-right candidate. He recently said that “Islamic sectarianism” creates “problems in France.” He also said that if a Palestinian State is not created very soon, Israel will be “the main threat to world peace.”

Three years ago, the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut published a book, The Unhappy Identity (L’identité malheureuse), describing the dangers inherent in the Islamization of France and the major disorders that stem from it. Juppé chose a campaign slogan intended to contradict Finkielkraut: “The Happy Identity“.

Since the publication of Alain Finkielkraut’s book, other pessimistic books have been published that became best-sellers in France. In October 2014, columnist Eric Zemmour published The French Suicide (Le suicide français). A few weeks ago, he published another book, A Five-Year Term for Nothing (Un quinquennat pour rien). He describes what he sees happening to France: “invasion, colonization, explosion.”

Zemmour defines the arrival of millions of Muslims in France during the last five decades as an invasion, and the recent arrival of hordes of migrants as the continuation of that invasion. He depicts the creation of “no-go zones” as the creation of Islamic territories on French soil and an integral part of a colonization process.

He writes that the eruptions of violence that spread are signs of an imminent explosion; that sooner or later, revolt will gain ground.

Another book, Will the Church Bells Ring Tomorrow? (Les cloches sonneront-elles encore demain?), was recently published by a former member of the French government, Philippe de Villiers.

Villiers notes the disappearance of churches in France, and their replacement by mosques. He also mentions the presence in “no-go zones” of thousands of weapons of war (AK-47 assault rifles, Tokarev pistols, M80 Zolja anti-tank weapons, etc). He adds that weapons will probably not even have to be used — the Islamists have already won.

In his new book, Will the Church Bells Ring Tomorrow?, Philippe de Villiers notes the disappearance of churches in France, and their replacement by mosques. Pictured above: On August 3, French riot police dragged a priest and his congregation from the church of St Rita in Paris, prior to its scheduled demolition. Front National leader Marine Le Pen said in fury: “And what if they built parking lots in the place of Salafist mosques, and not of our churches?” (Image source: RT video screenshot)

On November 13, 2016, France marked the first anniversary of the Paris attacks. Plaques were unveiled every place where people were killed. The plaques read: “In memory of the injured and murdered victims of the attacks.” No mention was made of jihadist barbarity. In the evening, the Bataclan Theater reopened with a concert by Sting. The last song of the concert was “Insh’ Allah”: “if Allah wills.” The Bataclan management prevented two members of the US band Eagles of Death Metal — who were on stage when the attack started — from entering the concert. A few weeks after the attack, Jesse Hughes, lead singer of the group, had dared to criticize the Muslims involved. The Bataclan’s director said about Hughes, “There are things you cannot forgive.”

Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.