Le Pen Interview

[Zrinski]

Published in Glas Slavonije(Voice of Slavonia) in November 19th 2005

Riots in France have contributed to growth of popularity of National Front(FN) of it's leader Jean-Marie Le Pen . In just of few days rating of this party has grown in over more than 5%, but the official media and the goverment are ignoring it and don't talk about it.

Are the last riots in French towns consequence of heavy social position of immigrants in your country?

No. Heavy social position of immigrants in France is the consequnce, not the reason. They are the consequence of the terms we gave to immigrants. First reason of current inorder is the lack of values and features of French society and for that they can no longer assimilate and accept foregin population.

Do these riots have the element of organization, and if they do, who are the organizators?

I think they do not. Probably there are young people who are manipulated, but we still can't say that there is some center of conspiracy from which the rebellion is orchestrated.
In such case France would be pushed into as we say «in blood and fire». Nevertheless what is certain is the that there are people who have the interest to provoke and push the young people into provocations. These are the dealers of drugs or islamic militants. Their interest is to remove the law of the state from those communities.

The impression is that the riots are settling down by itself. However if they escalate again, which is very posibble, in what way is it posibble to stop them?

The rebellions which have in dramatic manner marked the social and political scene of France are the direct consequence of immigration policy which have been led by French goverments in the last 30 years. Such political suicides have made it posibble for existance of zones in towns which are beyond control of the legal state system of France. In such way they have enabled them in violatation of peaceful lives of citizens and loss of French identity.
Today we need to give a series of answers for resolving of that issue, as in short-term as well as in long-term. First, we need to eliminate all surplus of emigration towards France. This is absolute need and priority. Second, we need to respect law and order, and this means that the participants of riots need to be arrested and punished and that those who are making damage to secutiry of people and to property answer for their deeds. Third, the immediate measure needs to be a policy of re-civilisation, and this means re-establishing of the esteem of France, to give the young people what they will love and respect, in other words again establish the institutions of family, school and army. This will enable successful asimilation of immigrants.

Where were the shortcomings of the measures which were instituted by the president Chirac and the minister of the interior Sarkozy in the attempt of resolving of evolving crisis?

As for Nicolas Sarkozy his shortcomings are evident. A week ago before the start of riots he stood up for participation of immigrants in French eletions, so that they have the right to vote in elections. A few months before he organized the islamic community in France. He enabled the organization of some sort of autonomy of immigrants so that they didn't have the need to know the French mentality, language and culture and with all that to incorporate into French nation. Sarkozy has abolished dual punishment or in other words he abolished legal posibbility which allowed that the foreigner after the endured punishment in prison, if we are talking about heavy criminal acts or murder, be deported from France. And last, Sarkozy is for positive discrimination, for the advantage of foreginers at employment and alike, and all on the damage of the French people. Such things only enhance the prejudice between the domcile population and the immigrants. Sarkozy on one side says «we need to have order» and then he uses totally irresponsible terminology calling people trash and scum, while on the other side he creates conditions for disorder. His mistakes are lack of harmony between words and deeds. As for prsident of the republic Jacques Chirac his shortcomings are even more expressed – he sees the rasons for the riots in France in totally wrong fashion. He consideres that the riots are result of shortcomings in social and financial policy for periphery and also the lack of tools for integration of immigrants. This is his mistake. The rebellions are mainly the fruits of destructuralization of series of values which have always marked the French society and which have enabled positive assimilation. These values were family, education, patriotism, army...and rewarding by contribution – so with the rights you need to have the obligations as well. There is another value – public moral and ethics. Emphasizing and respect of these values in the future can better the quality of life of people who live in those zones. Jacques Chirac is trying to impose a certain way of thinking on whole nation over the influential media.

The reputation of France has fallen in Europe, but also in the World as well. Who has the interest in that?

I don't know who has the interest, but for now our partners surely have certain distrust towards France because they think France is no longer a secure country. This can have diplomatic consequences as well as consequences for tourism and international economy.

Your opponents are presenting you and your party as the extreme right, as racists and people with low tolerance towards foreigners. Is that so?

This is grotesque manipulation! «National Front» has never been nor it is now a racist party. It never accused immigrants as people, but it did accused immigration policiy which was succesively led by all French goverments in the last 30 years. Such policy is responsible for the turning we have seen, but also for the mess and the confusion of autchtonous and new-coming French. There is no one who can lecture us about racism! I was the first poltician in France who has presented and enabled the election of the only black on local elections in 1958, with ancestry from Martinque. I was the first who enabled the election of the only Arab women from Maghreb in the local comittee in the region of Ile de France – that was in 1986, and the lady's name was Soraya Djebur. On international scene we have connections with many countries and especially friendly and privileged relations we have in Middle-East – with Lebanon, Palestinians and Iran. And I can say that I have excellent relations with Moroccan king with whom I share the same views regarding the problems of immigration. It is the same when we are talking about Russia and United States. This manipulation against me about racism was orchestrated by the people who don't have the interest of me coming to power because they would loose their privilges and benefits they have from the goverment.

What is the rating of the National Front in France today?

If we look at the last presidential elections our part has gathered 17% of French votes. I was also in the second round against president Chirac. However that was three years ago and for that time our reputation has increased even more which is also shown by the results of the referendum in May 29th this year when European constitution was refused. These last events, riots in the periphery of our towns, are only contributed so that our people become more aware that I have warned them about this long time ago. I believe that we have about 20-25% of voters today despite the fact they banned political polls in France in the last week for political parties and polticians, so that it couldn't be seen how much our party has grown and became strong.

How do you think to break the media blockade in which your party is positioned, as you say, at this moment?

In last few days I gave 70 interviews to foregin medias and to French – only one. When we are democrats we believe that everyone has the right to it's own opinion. If that is not the case in France you can only wonder what is the level of political freedom in our country!
You can judge alone this silence towards our 20-25% of rating.

What are you connections with political scene in Croatia?

We have many friends in Croatia. Political connections, especially with sovereigners, those who are worried for the sovereignty of the state. We were very sensible at the events in your country 15 years ago. We were amazed by the courage and the wish for freedom of the Croatian people. We have cordial relations with politicians in Croatia who seem to have more freedom to express their opinion than we have in our own country.

Is it true that you supported Croatia in it's struggle for independence?

That is correct. On our traditional assembly on May 1st 1991 in honour of Joan d'Arc, in front of 50 thousand participants in Paris, I showed the Croatian flag and called upon liberation from Serbian and communist agression. Why? Because we believed that your struggle is just and that we are defending the right of every nation to be the master of it's own future. It was clear to us that Croats could not express themselves in multinational state.

Croatia has begun negotiations for entry into the EU. What are the perspectives of our country in the EU?

I warn my friends in Croatia on the optical illusion of the federal Europe. Many Croats, as well as many people from ex-communist bloc think that Europe is the salvation on economic and diplomatic field. I am afraid that they are wrong because we in France have been co-operating with EU for 40 years now and today we suffer dramatic consequences. For example, agrarian policy of EU has caused disappearance of strong French agrarian sector. The trading policity has abolished taxing barriers on damage of great part of our home industry and the monetary policy has endangered French financial investments. Dramatic consequences of imigration policy are the result of weakining control on state borders, or in other words abolition of border control has opened France to «winds» from all sides. And the conseuqences of irresponsible monetary policy have led to isolation of France on world stage.

[Defensor Fidei]

LE PEN GOES BOTH WAYS

While between 200 and 500 skinhead imbeciles in Belgrade are glorifying Adolf Hitler, who called their nation "disgusting pests," and who planned to either exterminate all the Serbs or to deport them to Siberia, Vojislav Seselj socialized with and glorified a man who was an admirer and personal friend of the worst mass murderer of Serbs in history. Moreover, he brought him to Serbia, and presented him as a great friend of the Serbs. When Seselj was asked in 1997 how silly his "Karlobag-Karlovac-Virovitica" border looks now, he replied that maybe it does, but some day the power balance in the world could change - for instance if Vladimir Zhirinovsky would win in Russia, or if Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front (FN) would win in France.
It was the latter man he invited in early 1997 to Belgrade to advertise his political party and propagate "French-Serbian friendship," a thing which even if it ever existed - was buried five years ago permanently. This relationship of Seselj's definitely has the potential to clip a few hundred thousand voters from the Radical voting machine. Seselj failed to inform his supporters about some really juicy stuff from his darling Jean-Marie Le Pen's both distant and recent past; and as I already mentioned, the liberal parties in Serbia are either too busy defending the Radicals from foreign accusations or they are simply ignorant about the whole thing themselves.
As a young French neo-Nazi, thirsty for blood and gore, Jean-Marie Le Pen was all too anxious to meet a real live Nazi mass murderer. Of course, his craving was not too hard to satisfy as plenty of his role models fled through the Vatican's ratline to Argentina after World War II. He completed his quest by visiting Ante Pavelic - the Poglavnik of the Independent State of Croatia and Hitler's most loyal and most sanguinary ally.
Le Pen was so impressed by the Poglavnik's murderous reputation that he even wrote a book in his honor, called La Croatie martyre. If it wasn't tragic it would be even funny how Le Pen came to present himself as a Serbian friend.
Le Pen wasn't satisfied just by worshiping Nazi desk murderers, though. He had to get blood on his own hands as well, which he did in Northern Africa as a member of the French army. Forty years later he would speak proudly of killing Arab civilians as something that was his duty.
And the body count didn't end there. When the civil war in former Yugoslavia started, in support of his friendship with the Ustase, Le Pen sent weapons and volunteers to Croatia through his party, the National Front. The two foremost inheritors of "French-Serbian friendship" thus sent volunteers to fight on opposite sides of the war, making the relationship between Seselj and Le Pen even more peculiar and weird.
In May 1991 Le Pen visited Croatia himself to arrange the details of his aid to the Croatian army. Through the good offices of Dobroslav Paraga, the leader of the neo-Ustase Croatian Party of Rights, Le Pen met with top Croatian officials: Prime Minister Josip Manolic, Cardinal Franjo Kuharic, current president of Croatia Stjepan Mesic, current chairman of parliament Vladimir Seks, secretary of the HDZ Drago Krpina and others. On May 7th, Le Pen met with Franjo Tudjman himself. While some of these people deny they ever met Le Pen, there is a photograph of him and Stjepan Mesic, which is certainly interesting considering Mesic's impressive transformation from a right-wing to a left-wing politician.
Hundreds of members of the National Front fought in Croatia and Bosnia, alongside neo-Nazis from Germany, Austria, UK, Holland, Spain, Ireland, Canada and United States, although not all french neo-Nazis came from the National Front. The best-known combined unit of the FN and German neo-Nazis was the one stationed in the city of Split, who participated in the massacres in Medacki Dzep in Croatia and in Kupres in Bosnia. They didn't only murder Serbs, but also Muslims as it was the case when Croatian, German and French neo-Nazis under the command of a certain Jurgen Schmidt burned down the Muslim town of Prozor in November 1992. It wasn't rare either that FN members would brag on German and Austrian televisions how many civilians they killed, or that for every dead member of their unit they killed 10 Serbs.
Knowing all of this, the key question here is how and why did Le Pen, clearly a man with a distinct anti-Serb attitude, decide to switch his eternal loyalties from the Croats to the Serbs. The answer to that was given by his Croat ally, Dobroslav Paraga. In 1997, Paraga went to the Tenth Congress of the National Front in France, where Le Pen explained that he was hurt by the ungrateful attitude of the Croatian authorities for all the help he had provided and for all members of the FN who died in Croatia. The previous year, Le Pen had made his alliance with Seselj public, and came to Serbia and praised the Serbs to the heavens, although only a couple of years earlier he had cursed them all to hell.
Political prostitution may be a common practice for any politician, but the integrity and honor of fascists like Le Pen, Zhirinovsky and Seselj is cheaper than that of a two-dollar whore. Mussolini, the father of Fascism, is certainly the best example of that sort of behavior.
For Vojislav Seselj however, this may prove to be the thing that could send his party back into obscurity if their voters were better informed. The main propaganda themes of the Radicals are that they represent integrity and honor while all the others represent dishonor; that the Radicals are the only true patriots - all the others are foreign mercenaries and traitors; and that while they fight for Serbia's national dignity - all the others fight for foreign interests. Instead of pointing out to the people that the Radicals are the last ones who could boast of honor, integrity and patriotism, the "democratic" parties in Serbia keep repeating the hopeless canard that "the international community" is against the Radicals, creating a backlash which only works against them in the end.
Thus, because of his enemies' incompetence, the modern Dimitrije Ljotic can continue to hide his true face under the mask of patriotism and make promises like sweeping criminals "with an iron broom" or bringing jobs and prosperity, although the Radicals don't have a plan how to do that, or anything that would even resemble a plan. If they really could fulfill their promises, they would have done so the last time they were in government, sharing power with Milosevic for over two years. And even in that relationship with Milosevic, regardless of his character, the Radicals showed their fickle sense of "honor and integrity."
Before he formed a coalition with Milosevic, Seselj spoke of him and his wife as the Serbian version of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu (it was one of his favorite lines). However, when he formed a government with the Socialists, his attitude towards Milosevic completely changed. Milosevic's enemies became his enemies, and Seselj took it upon himself to persecute those enemies. Milosevic's autocratic regime then became a classical dictatorship, where freedom of speech was suppressed as brutally as under Communism. The Information Law of the Radicals enabled them to legally close down any media which would say anything they didn't like, though they said they modeled their law on the British Information Law. The autonomy of universities - respected even under Communism - was abolished and students who protested about it were being beaten up by the police on regular basis. However, the love between Milosevic and Seselj lasted for only two years - when Milosevic was ousted in October 2000, Seselj turned against him and supported the change. This display of consistency and integrity was rewarded by his voters in the next election when the Radicals won 600,000 less votes than in previous ballots. As incredible as it may sound, the consistent and honorable Mr. Seselj after that again came running back into Milosevic's lap, and Slobo and his wife supported their loyal ally as a presidential candidate in Serbia for the elections in 2002. In spite of that and despite an incredibly dirty campaign by the Radicals, Seselj still came third behind Vojislav Kostunica and Miroljub Labus.