Franco-Intifada: right wing wants “blood”

Bill Weinberg

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
By: francisurquhart

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.

  1. Miss spelling a word doesn’t
    Miss spelling a word doesn’t make the statement wrong. It does not matter what the history or the economic social issues are, people are responsible for their actions. I only have two things to say America is not going to rescue the French this time and France is starting to look like Beirut, Lebanon.

    Remember the last time France had a dialogue with an enemy in Europe? Hitler got a new country out of those talks.

    1. Huh?
      “Dialogue with an enemy”? If you are refering to the Munich Agreement, it was really Britain that sat down at the table with the Nazis, although France was also a party to the resulting pact. But more to the point, we don’t think a bunch of pissed-off kids in run-down housing projects constitute the new Hitler…

      1. Not just the French – the UK, Netherlands, Danes
        Have massive problems causing through the mass immigration of millions of muslims.
        Remember all that ‘Old Europe’ stuff about France? Its total refusal in backing the US, vetoing the invasion of Iraq. With 7% of the French population muslim the whole country would have been in flames if he backed the US.

        TOTAL MADNESS – France will be 20% muslim on projected trends in 20 years.

    2. Who cares about actual facts?
      It does not matter what the history or the economic social issues are, people are responsible for their actions.

      Whether people “are responsible for their actions” is not the issue under discussion. What we want to know are the motivations of the rioters, and for that history and socio-economic factors are central. The two pundits quoted above appear to know little about either, and no doubt care even less – prefering to get off on a ready-made “clash of civilisations” template. Why don’t these characters actually read something relevant before they pontificate – something by people who have actually studied French muslims, like Jocelyne Cesari, or Jonathan Laurence and Justin Vaisse, or Dounia Bouzar, or Laurent Mucchielli?

  2. Xenophobia goes mainstream
    More vile propaganda from the American press. What is really insidious here is that a screed worthy of the Aryan Nations—complete with deep loathing for the swarthy hoards, centuries-nurtured historical grudges and nostalgia for Charles Martel—is being run unabashedly in a mainstream paper, the Chicago Sun-Times of Nov. 6. Just a few years—months?—ago, this kind of rhetoric would have been considered beyond the pale… From columnist Mark Steyn:

    Ever since 9/11, I’ve been gloomily predicting the European powder keg’s about to go up. ”By 2010 we’ll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on the news every night,” I wrote in Canada’s Western Standard back in February.

    Silly me. The Eurabian civil war appears to have started some years ahead of my optimistic schedule. As Thursday’s edition of the Guardian reported in London: ”French youths fired at police and burned over 300 cars last night as towns around Paris experienced their worst night of violence in a week of urban unrest.”

    ”French youths,” huh? You mean Pierre and Jacques and Marcel and Alphonse? Granted that most of the “youths” are technically citizens of the French Republic, it doesn’t take much time in les banlieus of Paris to discover that the rioters do not think of their primary identity as ”French”: They’re young men from North Africa growing ever more estranged from the broader community with each passing year and wedded ever more intensely to an assertive Muslim identity more implacable than anything you’re likely to find in the Middle East. After four somnolent years, it turns out finally that there really is an explosive ”Arab street,” but it’s in Clichy-sous-Bois.

    The notion that Texas neocon arrogance was responsible for frosting up trans-Atlantic relations was always preposterous, even for someone as complacent and blinkered as John Kerry. If you had millions of seething unassimilated Muslim youths in lawless suburbs ringing every major city, would you be so eager to send your troops into an Arab country fighting alongside the Americans? For half a decade, French Arabs have been carrying on a low-level intifada against synagogues, kosher butchers, Jewish schools, etc. The concern of the political class has been to prevent the spread of these attacks to targets of more, ah, general interest. They seem to have lost that battle. Unlike America’s Europhiles, France’s Arab street correctly identified Chirac’s opposition to the Iraq war for what it was: a sign of weakness.

    The French have been here before, of course. Seven-thirty-two. Not 7:32 Paris time, which is when the nightly Citroen-torching begins, but 732 A.D. — as in one and a third millennia ago. By then, the Muslims had advanced a thousand miles north of Gibraltar to control Spain and southern France up to the banks of the Loire. In October 732, the Moorish general Abd al-Rahman and his Muslim army were not exactly at the gates of Paris, but they were within 200 miles, just south of the great Frankish shrine of St. Martin of Tours. Somewhere on the road between Poitiers and Tours, they met a Frankish force and, unlike other Christian armies in Europe, this one held its ground ”like a wall . . . a firm glacial mass,” as the Chronicle of Isidore puts it. A week later, Abd al-Rahman was dead, the Muslims were heading south, and the French general, Charles, had earned himself the surname ”Martel” — or ”the Hammer.”

    Poitiers was the high-water point of the Muslim tide in western Europe. It was an opportunistic raid by the Moors, but if they’d won, they’d have found it hard to resist pushing on to Paris, to the Rhine and beyond. ”Perhaps,” wrote Edward Gibbon in The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, ”the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.” There would be no Christian Europe. The Anglo-Celts who settled North America would have been Muslim. Poitiers, said Gibbon, was ”an encounter which would change the history of the whole world.”

    Battles are very straightforward: Side A wins, Side B loses. But the French government is way beyond anything so clarifying. Today, a fearless Muslim advance has penetrated far deeper into Europe than Abd al-Rahman. They’re in Brussels, where Belgian police officers are advised not to be seen drinking coffee in public during Ramadan, and in Malmo, where Swedish ambulance drivers will not go without police escort. It’s way too late to rerun the Battle of Poitiers. In the no-go suburbs, even before these current riots, 9,000 police cars had been stoned by ”French youths” since the beginning of the year; some three dozen cars are set alight even on a quiet night. ”There’s a civil war under way in Clichy-sous-Bois at the moment,” said Michel Thooris of the gendarmes’ trade union Action Police CFTC. ”We can no longer withstand this situation on our own. My colleagues neither have the equipment nor the practical or theoretical training for street fighting.”

    What to do? In Paris, while ”youths” fired on the gendarmerie, burned down a gym and disrupted commuter trains, the French Cabinet split in two, as the ”minister for social cohesion” (a Cabinet position I hope America never requires) and other colleagues distance themselves from the interior minister, the tough-talking Nicolas Sarkozy who dismissed the rioters as ”scum.” President Chirac seems to have come down on the side of those who feel the scum’s grievances need to be addressed. He called for ”a spirit of dialogue and respect.” As is the way with the political class, they seem to see the riots as an excellent opportunity to scuttle Sarkozy’s presidential ambitions rather than as a call to save the Republic.

    A few years back I was criticized for a throwaway observation to the effect that ”I find it easier to be optimistic about the futures of Iraq and Pakistan than, say, Holland or Denmark.” But this is why. In defiance of traditional immigration patterns, these young men are less assimilated than their grandparents. French cynics like the prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, have spent the last two years scoffing at the Bush Doctrine: Why, everyone knows Islam and democracy are incompatible. If so, that’s less a problem for Iraq or Afghanistan than for France and Belgium.

    If Chirac isn’t exactly Charles Martel, the rioters aren’t doing a bad impression of the Muslim armies of 13 centuries ago: They’re seizing their opportunities, testing their foe, probing his weak spots. If burning the ‘burbs gets you more ”respect” from Chirac, they’ll burn ’em again, and again. In the current issue of City Journal, Theodore Dalrymple concludes a piece on British suicide bombers with this grim summation of the new Europe: ”The sweet dream of universal cultural compatibility has been replaced by the nightmare of permanent conflict.” Which sounds an awful lot like a new Dark Ages.