Following an 11th straight night of violence in France, extremely unseemly gloating is starting to emerge from the right wing in both America and Israel. Given that the uprising provides the opportunity to indulge both Francophobia and Islamophobia simultaneously, how can they resist? The basic theme is that a “bloody” crackdown is mandated to save Western civilization, but those effeminate frogs will doubtless shirk from this sacred duty. First, from our side of the Atlantic, this gem from the vile RedState.org:
The Need for Blood on the Streets of Paris
The time has come for the use of violent force to quell the riots in France. Indeed, the time came days ago but now, I fear, we have reached a moment where the future of Western Civilization can be secured only by the shedding of blood. I say this with regret, but full of the conviction that conflict today will prevent a great tragedy tomorrow.
By now the situation is well-known to all. After the deaths, nine days ago, of two Islamic youth in what can only be described as an active example of evolution-in-action (hint for future: electrocution = bad) the various Moslem malcontents of France began what, at this point, can best be characterized as a French Intifada.
The French Government is, not unnaturally, trying to play these events down. However “Intifada” is exactly the correct label to place upon these disturbances. We have, in recent days, seen the burning of hundreds of cars, stone throwing attacks against the police, sniping against the police, and the lighting of people – including one female bystander – alight without cause. Moreover, the demands of the rioters are increasingly beginning to become clear. The ultimate goal of those looking beyond the window they’re about to smash is for the French authorities to cede civil authority over various areas of France inhabited by Moslems (presumably while continuing to pay the costs of welfare).
This is a dangerous time for the future of the West. It is very possible that, all tough talk aside, the French might make some concessions to the rioters. Indeed, given the history of the French, it is more likely that they will do so than they will not. However, in the French do give in to Islamic demands, it will truly and fully inaugurate the process of the Israelification (or Ulsterization, if you will) of Europe – leading to an age where Islamic outrages are followed by mild European push-back, tough talk and finally concessions. Those who have laughed at conservative fears of a future Moslem Europe need look no further than France today to see how it could happen.
Imagine, for a moment, if the French authorities were to concede civil authority over various areas of France to the 10% of the population which is Islamic. What happens in two decades when 20% of the population is Moslem (a virtual certainly)? The only option, in that case, would be to cede more of France to them. And what after that? Given present fertility rates and immigration patterns, many of us alive today (including myself) could live to see the day when Moslems become a majority in France.
And, as goes France, so will go other parts of Europe. If the French concede to their Moslems some form of civic autonomy, soon the Moslems of Italy, Denmark, Holland, Britain and elsewhere will be rioting for the same – if it isn’t simply handed to them by fearful and cowardly politicians in advance. If France gives in, then it becomes likely that Europe – like Israel – will gradually be chipped away at by the insidious forces of Islam. Inch by inch, the Moslems of today will achieve – with the help of craven and guilt-ridden European politicians – what their forbearers could not achieve through war via demographic conquest.
We cannot rescue France now, as we rescued them in the World Wars. There is no practical way. The French will have to do it on their own – and their reliability remains doubtful, at best. But it is in their hands now.
Order must be restored to the streets – we cannot allow the Moslems to create Palestine on the Seine. It would be the beginning of the end.
There is now only one way to restore order – with shot and shell. As harsh as it sounds, there is now no alternative to blood running in the streets of Paris. Indeed – it is now the preferable option. Even to allow the riots to simply recede – followed by concessions – would be to postpone the date of the cataclysm to come.
The French need to send in the army with live ammunition – ready to do their duty. It is essential to the future of France and to the future of Europe that a message be sent and that immediate steps be taken to repeal the Moslem foe. This begins with the restoration of order – but it does not end there. Given the dire situation of the French (with one in ten people being a Moslem and that number rising) there is no other option, really, but to both cut off further Islamic immigration and then to conduct mass deportations. It may not be practical to deport every Moslem – but a large number of troublemakers will have to be removed, perhaps even some who are formally citizens of France.
Steps of these sort are the only way to save France from the fate which she is marching towards. No other way can be found of restoring the nation and saving it from destruction.
The time has come to discard sentimentality and to accept that, for the future to be saved, lives will have to be lost.
Next, Sever Plocker writes for Israel’s YNetNews.com:
“They deserve it,” say many Israelis about the Paris intifada: The French “deserve it” for their one-sidedness with regard to the al-Aqsa intifada, “deserve it” for their understanding of Palestinian suicide bombers, and they especially “deserve it” for pointedly ignoring a flourishing Muslim problem in their own house, in view of the Louvre.
But now it is impossible to ignore: In France, as in other parts of Europe, there is a large Muslim minority that feels no kinship with European civilization. Each one rejects the other…
Muslim neighborhoods in many European cities – London, Madrid, Hamburg, Amsterdam, Rome and Paris – are today centers of radicalism and terror, fertile incubators for jihad and anti-Israeli activity. The traditional leadership, which preached assimilation, has lost its authority and has been replaced with various preachers of religious extremism…
“Radical Islam”, wrote Francis Fukiyama in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend, tells (disenfranchised European Muslims) exactly who they are- respected members of a global Muslim umma to which they can belong despite their lives in lands of unbelief.” [Missing second open-quote—sic]
It is not at all clear whether the vision of a united, democratic Europe include the Islamism of North African immigrants and their children. [Missing auxiliary verb—sic] It was created without taking into account the existence of a militant Muslim minority.
“Democracy in Europe will be in big trouble in the future as Muslims become an ever larger percentage of the population,” wrote Fukiyama. “And since Europe is today one of the main battlegrounds of the war on terrorism, this reality will matter for the rest of us as well.”
But the troubles have already started: Terror in London, terror cells in Amsterdam and intifada in Paris.
This is just the beginning, not the end.
Note that this genius Plocker actually spells Fukuyama’s name wrong (as well as truncating his quotes somewhat without ellipses, which is not strictly kosher). Fukuyama’s WSJ piece (online at Persian Journal) was apparently written before the French uprising broke out, and concerns the one-year anniversary of the slaying of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh by an apparent Islamist militant, Mohamed Bouyeri. Much could be said on this subject, but Fukuyama offers both inaccurate reportage and garbled prose. Here’s the closing paragraph, that Plocker truncated (for obvious reasons):
[N]ational identity has to be a source of inclusion, not exclusion; nor can it be based, contrary to the assertion of the gay Dutch politician Pym Fortuyn who was assassinated in 2003, on endless tolerance and valuelessness. The Dutch have at least broken through the stifling barrier of political correctness that has prevented most other European countries from even beginning a discussion of the interconnected issues of identity, culture and immigration. But getting the national identity question right is a delicate and elusive task. Many Europeans assert that the American melting pot cannot be transported to European soil. Identity there remains rooted in blood, soil and ancient shared memory. This may be true, but if so, democracy in Europe will be in big trouble in the future as Muslims become an ever larger percentage of the population. And since Europe is today one of the main battlegrounds of the war on terrorism, this reality will matter for the rest of us as well.
Woah! Hold the phone! Pym Fortuyn was an advocate of “endless tolerance”? The man built his political career on exploiting Islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment! (He was, incongruously, assassinated by an animal-rights extremist, not an Islamist.) Talk about getting it wrong! You know, it seems to us that just a few years ago, in the post-Cold War but pre-9-11 interlude of capitalist triumphalism, Fukuyama was declaring the “End of History.” He has never eaten crow over this laughably hubristic proclamation which subsequent events have disproven with horrific decisiveness. If the “end of history” was in 1992 (the year he published his thusly-entitled tome), one would imagine there is nothing more to be said about anything whatsoever. So why doesn’t he shut up already?
Fukuyama is merely high-handed and misinformed, and if he weighs in on the French crisis we hope he will do better than this Plocker who cites him. The van Gogh affair and the current violence in France call for grappling, not gloating. The redneck and Zionist exploitation of the social explosion is as sickening as it is predictable.
See our last post on the Franco-Intifada.