The new French Revolution: Lunacy, Flaccidity and Theocracy!

Submitted by Reuben Horne (Australia), Nov 8, 2005 at 19:53

Dr Pipes,

Welcome to the future. Europe as usual has found yet another way to self destruct, the last way being that of facism, this time incapable of taking the action required to remove a hostile body politic from their society, or for that matter recognise one when it emerges. A few points come to mind:

In Australia a recent spate of raids identified and possibly stopped a major terrorist operation put into action by a Muslim cleric from Algeria named Abu Bakkar. The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils immediately after the raid sent a representative to the Attorney General's office demanding that the legislation be repealed on the basis that it discriminated against Muslims. If general legislation discriminates against Muslims operationally then one might naturally conclude that there is something very wrong with the Muslim community - this has been artfully circumvented by our Prime Minister who seems determined to play the statesman.

The central left minor Australian Federal Senate party named the Democrats even went on to allege the raids were politically contrived in that they occurred so close to the emergency passage of the criticised anti-terror legislation that Howard must have asked the Federal Police Commissioner "Are there any raids that can be performed now?" This sort of nonsense downgrades our security credentials - most liberals in Australia emphasise the extremely low chance of being killed in a terrorist attack to justify their run and hide policies of appeasement and alternative indifference. All very well and good unless you get caught in an attack yourself. I would expect more of this stupidity before any endgame in this ongoing psychological war. I wonder also how long it will be before peak Muslim bodies playing upon the dual victim and superiority complex of Muslims are able to organise aberrant perceptions of this into similar civil insurrection in Australia - certainly they have both the numbers and the central leadership to do so effectively.

Secondly if any clarity of purpose needs to be ascribed to the present situation the one can look to the words of Abu Bakkar the mastermind of the aforementioned attempted terror attacks in Australia: "In Islam we can accept only one law - that is Sharia - no other law can be tolerated". Indeed Sharia is percieved to be the answer to the plight of the overabundence of Muslim youths in France - it elevates them economically over the infidels in the communities that adjoin theirs forcing the latter to pay more tax (which they probably do already anyway thanks to the threshhold income tax system) and go about in inferior clothing all of which would make the Muslims situation less of an affront. The social issues that they are confronted with are thus linked to the radicalisation of their ideology but in such a way that it is unlikely material appeasement will help. Already the youths recieve more benefits than they could ever imagine in their own countries of origin (which is perhaps why they don't return) - it is the relative material wealth of the traditional French that they lust after - and since they are unwilling to work within the society to achieve this a riot constitutes a viable strategic alternative. The French will get used to such pogroms in the absence of effective government action. Once again I would blame the stupidity of the people who let them in rather than the youths themselves - the outcome was always predictable.

Thirdly though I despise Communism Marx's paradigm of class warfare would explain much of the present situation. In Europe the conservative elite are concerned primarily with economic power. Having a large cheap labour force from either Eastern Europe or Africa and the Middle East is an extremely desirable financial position to be working from in closing the gap with the rising Asian powers and their inifinite supply of cheap labour. The political predispositions of the migrants are irrelevant - terrorism itself is comparatively low mortality. The twin economic flaws in the model seem only to be the possibility of pogroms like the ones in France that cause large scale infrastructure damage and the skittishness of the modern paper economy when confronted with spectaculor pieces of street theatre like the attacks in London or even September 11. Nonetheless the effects of the migrant population's presence is clear especially for the larger enterprises. The lower end workers pay and conditions are placed under pressure because he is likely to be replaced if he tries to defend them since there are many others who would love to have his job especially amongst the migrant community. And these migrants are used to conditions much more aversive. In order to ensure that the migrants themselves can't copy their French compatriots in organising to challenge their conditions an overabundence of migrant workers is required so that they themselves are under pressure in terms of wages and conditions and in danger of replacement.

The failure to find employment amongst the migrant communities so readily touted by the left as evidence of widespread racism (a tired and overused construct) is more a gauge of the failure of the migrants to integrate and assimilate. The bulk of people employed in a prototypical western economy (some 80% on average) are employed in a small or medium enterprises (which are often a kind of family firm arrangement). If a person holds to objectionable values, or cannot speak your language or comes from a community of ill repute responsible for much crime, political instability and disorder you will not employ him or her. Especially in a smaller enterprise where the effects of such obnoxious traits are multiplied 1000 fold and cannot be lost or diffused across the organisation. This is simple business sense. To put it back onto the business people and accuse them of racism is simply the government and academic elite passing the buck - denying responsability for a problem which they themselves have manufactured through a mixture of incompetance, serving deviant special interest and indifference. Such attacks upon the community mounted by even right wing governments demonstrate their willingness to stray into leftist constructs and ideology when it strengthens their position in the blame game. Solving problems when it requires you transcend the morays imposed by a culture addicited to ideology is so much harder. At best then they leave such solutions till later when they have a substantial excuse generated by disaster or they simply leave it to the next government.

Even the Islamites know the left wing PC neosocialist script - just take a look at Sultan's missive. He is educational as always - just not perhaps in the misdirective manner he intends.

Fourthly whilst not embracing vigilantism and deploring the forms of militant action engaged in by the Muslims in France and elsewhere I am dismayed by the lack of retaliatory action from the citizenry of France. Rather than highlighting any commitment to the Rule of Law it demonstrates the weakness of our communities - the extent to which we have become alienated from each other and our traditional value systems. The pacification of our communities and the sluggish flaccidity of the response in France - legal and otherwise - simply demonstrate the extent to which Georg Lukacs has been successful in this paradigm of PC he introduced in the 1960s. Except his "new socialist man" is not emerging from his academic, moral and social sabotage - instead we have these sensative new age types who resemble hippies without the long hair and bohemian clothing (and occasionally with them). Their philosophy of absolute pacifism has become the predominant one in relation to domestic affairs - its penetration into foreign affairs has not been complete as evinced by the war in Iraq but certainly the nominal position of a majority opposing just about every military action undertaken by our governments represents a cogent exemplar of the extent of its penetration in the general public. It is the "white liberal doctrine of nonviolence". The more acts of aggression such as these that go unpunished and unreacted to by severe means the more morally ravaged and docile our population becomes. Like a schoolchild who gets used to being bullied because he/she knows nothing else.

In the light of such inaction the "tough talk" from old francophiles "If you come to France you become French or you leave!" seems utterly laughable in the light of the dilineated weakness above. Until such empty saber rattling is acted upon it remains just that, ditto for the statements from the tough talking French Prime Ministerial candidate. Aye indeed it seems to be just about the only thing Muslims in Australia fear - community reaction to their appalling ideology in a direct and violent sense - the major reason they wanted the legislation repealed - 'cause if their dirty little militant ambitions are brought to light it backlash becomes a possibility. Methinks they can rest easy as at the heart of the west is an apologistic vacuum dedicated to enduring the genetic revenge implied by the reverse colonialism of multiculturalism. In any event there is no one flag for the western community to rally around as all of our institutions we have been systematically taught to believe are inherently evil and amoral. In addition we are bombarded on a nightly basis by apologistic revisionism that in one example from Australia's public broadcaster extols the virtues of the Moorish empires in Spain and Sicily before we (the Christians) "callously" destroyed them. The misery and slavery of the suppressed and commodified local Christian communities under Moorish religious apartheid is not discussed - just the ruthless action brought about to force the Muslims into an exfiltration. The impact of such intellectual violences is nontrivial and cumulative.

Fifth and finally, it would be a mistake to simply characterise the tactically sophisticated Muslims as mere rabble. Consistently and without variation they have played the most successful word games with an enviable understanding not only of western legal but ideological flaws, quirks, minefields and wastelands and an unsurpassed ability to negotiate them. Once again read Sultan's missive - there is no doubt as to whose interests he is looking out for but he is able to nestle his argument safely within the language and neosocialist theory of the infidel. This ability has become one possessed by seemingly every Islamic spokesperson - the slips they make in speaking to the western media are getting fewer and farther between. Observe the sanitisation of the word "Jihad" for the western media - "internal struggle" - truly what PC bosh. Add to that the assertion by the Islamic peak body representative that in challenging the anti-terror laws he was making a stand for "truth, freedom and democracy". A very veiled attempt to win back the strategic advantage and bargaining position unfettered terrorist activity gave the Islamic community - but successfully occluded from the "see no evil hear no evil" public nonetheless.

The tactic of the slip from terrorism to this form of viral civic conflagration has a number of implications: for starters it represents a tactical upgrade and cunning shift of the modus operandi used by the same body of opponents - apparently they understand that they will be met with less force because of the softer tactics of police in dealing with domestic insurrection than they would be operating as an external military threat from outside - thus they do battle through immigration; it also crystallises the relationship between mainstream Islamic thought as it is evolving and Islamic militarism/fundamentalism/Islamism or whatever arbitrary label you wish to ascribe to it - the philosophy is successful and hence it has an increasing number of adherents - it is also so popular among the youth of a minority population in France that it can paralyse a country; it confirms the liberal bias of our media who have retreated into conventional socialist explanations of poverty and oppression for civil malconent - well perhaps some of them do apply - but as Dr Pipes and I highlight there are also other important factors that are strategically pertinent that are being ignored - religion is relevant here - very relevant; it represents as I stated before an escalation of the same conflict that is being fought through terrorism - but unlike the aforementioned it is beyond our resources to effectively control given the size of the migrant communities that participate - just as we begin to adjust to one tactic the enemy adopts another and in a very deliberate fashion - these riots were organised and there were many who were trained participants - but I hold no illusions that it will replace terrorism given the relative success of the latter so expect a more deadly combination strategy in the future which will stretch western resources beyond breaking point; it shows us how weak our own self absorbed lifestyle obsessed nihilism has made us - we would much rather believe the comforting messages of our media and our Islamic enemy than face the truth of the cliff on which our future hangs - we lack the fortitude to breed let alone defend our homes and property from such attacks in any organised way. Well this is the shatter point - the time is here - either the west rallies or falls into decline and much will depend on the political direction taken by the French.

So my solution: define citizenship more narrowly such that it excludes these individuals who run about waving Algerian flags and cursing France though they are second generation inhabitants of the country. Find a country that will take them and expel them to said country. Legally they may be French but laws change. The reality of the situation the French face and the law must bend to take into account is that the nation is being assailed by a hostile body politic in the guise of a religion. Do this and then the tough talk means something. Do other than this and you surrender your values, your symbols, your childrens futures and ultimately your country. There were reasons why we fought to kick these people out of Europe before and they plainly haven't changed or evolved so the reasons are equally valid today.

Cordially,
Reuben Horne.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".