La Racaille

As predicted, or more accurately, threatened by Ségolène Royal, there is violence in the wake of Nicolas Sarkozy’s victory in the French presidential election. The riot and mayhem in the streets of Paris recalls past acts of destruction and outrage at the hands of losing partisans: from the 1996 brawls in Washington, DC, by Dole supporters; to the destructive spree of angry Tories in the City of London in 1997; to the recent smashing of shop-windows by Republicans on 8 November 2006; and yes, to the violence visited upon the hapless City of Light by RPR youth in the aftermath of Mitterand’s 1988 victory in France. The present wreckage on French streets — see an excellent series of photos here — is therefore of a piece with long-established Western tradition.

Except it’s not, of course: the above-mentioned events are all fictitious, with the exception of the very real anti-Sarkozy violence. This is a curious thing, but notable: in the liberal West, at least, it is the left that has a near-monopoly on mob violence and public disorder today. We saw it emerge in the protests of the 1990s, and it has moved into more explicitly political spheres since. It is curious on two counts: first, because of the stereotype of left-wing activists is not a particularly violent one; second, because no political stripe not involving Quakers has any monopoly on violence in history. So why just the left, and why now?

I recall quite well attending the George W. Bush inaugural in January 2001. It was the least enjoyable inaugural in memory, partly because of the chilling rain, but mostly because of the ranks of profanity-screaming protesters with whom we shared the sidelines of the parade route. Their case, such as it was, was that the 2000 election had been “stolen,” and that George W. Bush was shortly to turn America into a cross between The Handmaid’s Tale and the Third Reich. Their reaction, then, was one of resentment at past deeds, but even more one of fear for the future. The hysteria was mystifying then and now: if there are sufficient grounds for decrying the Bush Administration today, there were few then, when it was mere minutes old. More to the point, there were no rational grounds for supposing that there ever would be, especially in the terms used by the strident left. Whether those terms are justified now is debatable; and even if you think they are, it still defies credulity to suppose that foreknowledge and perspicacity reside in a milieu markedly reliant upon giant puppets for communication. The absurdity was not limited to the streets of the national capital: I remember speaking with a left-wing friend about his own inaugural activities, which involved having over an attractive young actress to watch the festivities. She bawled, inconsolable for America, through the whole thing.

It was hardly limited to 2001: even in 2004, there were rumblings that this election would be the last election, with a Bush victory sealing the fate of American democracy. Two years later, no one from that corner remembered to mention this when flush with victory. The system works; but the system only works when it works for us. This sort of behavior over elections that don’t go one’s way — the anguish, the hysteria, the paranoia, the weeping, the smashing — is ridiculous and dangerous, and it’s almost entirely the province of the left. As in America, so too in France now. The difference, of course, is that in France they go farther than tears, shrieks and profanity. The socialists and the anti-Sarkozy forces wade into the streets, deface grand monuments, fight police, torch automobiles, and generally behave exactly as citizens of a mature democracy should not. Their standard-bearer threatened that they would, and her threat is made good.

It is pitiable and worrying all at once. They are bad losers who deserve whatever misery they bring upon themselves, be it abiding depression or a police truncheon. On the other hand, they are fellow-citizens, whether of America or France, whom we need to make democracy work. Democracy fails when its results are only sanctioned in the event of victory. In their anger, violence and loathing, the despondent leftists of America then, and France now, are not merely rejecting a particular election — they are abandoning the very idea that sustains their republic.

Social and political violence-clear/concrete evidence from Asia

One islamic lady like Hirsh Ali or Nonie Darwish or Kamala Surayya is this one by name Ms Fareena Raza! We find a fine collection of islamic atrocities over several parts of India. Here is the link to her comments as well as blogs:

I am amazed at her courage and conviction quite unseen in most ladies of the islamic faith - in some sense more than Ms Ali!!

Islamofascism same as communism - Hitler was a proud socialist

Advanced danger alerts/signals can be gotten/gleaned from South Asia for every current event of EU. India portends what will happen in EU or the West down the road. Read on:
Heroin, Taliban and Pakistan
B. Raman

PAKISTAN'S illegal heroin economy has kept its legitimate economy sustained since 1990 and prevented its collapse. It has also enabled it maintain a high level of arms purchases from abroad, and finance its proxy war against India through the jehadi organisations.

While no estimate of the money spent by it on its proxy war is available, according to Pakistani analysts (Friday Times, March 9), about 80 per cent of its total external debt of $38 billion, that is, about US $30.4 billion, was incurred on arms purchases since 1990.

With the active encouragement of the USA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs.
The URL of this article is:Updated:2007-05-20 14:53:25
U.S. Pays Pakistan to Fight Terror
But Leader Slashes Patrols Aimed at Al Qaeda, Taliban
The New York Times
The $3 billion Question By Syed Rezwi
United States decision to release $701 million aid package to Pakistan
The unlimited possibility of Pakistan being a ‘rogue’ state was brought to the lime light, some of the accusations leveled against Pakistan may be much unsophisticated, but was detrimental to the US-Pakistan relations to some extent, and the Bush administration had no other way to shed off the persuasion then to pressure Musharraf to crack down on Jihadi Groups in Pakistan more aggressively.
IF YOU THINK YOU CAN BUY PEACE, VIA PAYING OFF THE MENACING THUGS, THINK AGAIN!! Isnt that called mafiosi tactics getting benefited?!! Mafia intimidation is a new industry more lucrative than tourism, business, trade, commerce, manufacture all put together - easy money - using the right threats! Pakkis have perfected it!!!!

The left? #2

@ pvdh

Your two-liner raises more questions than answers.

First, it would help if one could take a 'big picture' view w.r.t. political violence in contemporary western civilisation, instead of being too close to any specific local conflict (such as that of the Brussels "rand").   If you stand too close to any particular part of an elephant, you may not be able to see the whole beast.   The article in question was about political violence in the West, and that is today overwhelmingly 'leftist' in nature.

Second, it would also help if one could put things in an historical perspective, and have a mature view of a difficult concept like "democracy" (which should never be confused with 'simple majority'). 

The issue of the Brussels "rand" is a LOCAL problem that has little if anything to do with a general or intra-civilisational ideological conflict of the left-right variety.  And it needs to be judged in an historical context.   This issue cannot be extensively dealt with in a few paragraphs, but I can raise a number of points that could help you START thinking instead of parroting one-sided opinions.   

If a "majority" of local francophones manifestly want to break the (language) laws of the polity (the State), then it is ludicrous for you to call that a "democratic outcome".  In fact you seem to be aligning yourself with socio-economic powerful people in undermining democracy.  Democracy is not possible without constant compromises at the level of the overall political system, not at a local level. And democracy certainly requires that the law should apply equally to all, including locally powerful people who want to ignore their own duties, and create new 'rights' for themselves in the process.   It is also ridiculous for you to imply that resistance to either (a) cultural imperialism of one group over an other, or to (b) cultural 'invasion' (refusal to adjust to local culture and laws) by 'immigrants', that such resistance would be 'rightist' in nature.   After all, it would suffice to ask only a few questions to most VMO militants about issues like the proper role of the state in the economy to realise that most of them belong on the left of the traditional left-right scale.

In any case, the article was about political violence in western societies after electoral victories at national levels.  I dare you to give me one - 1 - example in recent times (say the past 20 years) of WIDESPREAD general violence in response to electoral victories of parties broadly considered of the 'left' on the political spectrum.   By contrast, the article above can rightly point to numerous examples which indicate that the reverse is not true.    

more a matter of political models

The Left has many models of political action or poltically-inspired violence leading, successfully, to political power, and then tells itself stories to legitimizes that action as an accepted form of political discourse.   So, for example, storming the Bastille, the Italian unification, Birmingham, a thousand other marches, a dozen other revolutions.   In the back of their mental playbook, if the ballot doesn't work, for the Left, the baton will.


The Right doesn't have those stories, and where they exist, they are expunged.   So, Pinochet goes to trial, the contra's reviled, Franco demonized, pro-life demonstrators arrested, etc...   Partly that is the Left winning the propaganda war, but I think it is also an implicit weakness in the Right's theory, the Right doesn't think it legitimate to go outside state organs to effect their aims, except maybe in the limited sphere of preserving the state itself.  

More, the Right acknowledges the moral purpose of existing institutions, and the state amongst them. Some elements of the Left would hold all existing institutions as intrinsically immoral, moral purpose instead resides in smashing what is.

In France ?

Well, it is not the best ever seen, but is this France that regains some honor and pride electing a right-wing, american-friendly, immigration-stopper (and maybe a little demagogic) Président ?

France was turning more and more contemptible for its own way to make politics. Maybe it will have a new face to show the rest of the world, being proud of 53% of the whole Frenches who voted for a right-wing figure ! Unrealizable, I can applause Sarkozy one more time for having defied all the slanted medias... but he ruined the French gallantry myth by overtaking a lady (j/k).

Arnachists ? (no need to call them leftist anymore in these cases) Well, they are just bad losers. They promote democracy only if it benefits their cause, unless what, democracy is a fascist system financed by evil capitalist magnates. Lenin had that kind of speech before being reponsible for 100m killed people over a century.


@ Amsterdamsky


It would appear that you got your blinkers on again. 

The subject was political violence.  The article did not address soccer hooliganism in Europe, nor domestic violence in Appalachia or among imported muslim communities.  And, yes, empirical observation confirms that almost all POLITICAL violence today in western societies is of the leftist variety.  That includes, of course, islamist violence and violence of other aggrieved groups that have received the leftist imprimatur of 'victimhood' status. 

If you want to speculate on the political identification of participants in "football riots" anywhere, go ahead.  But, I doubt that you have any substantiated evidence to rest your case on.   Which means that you are blowing 'hot air', something you no doubt want to ascribe to Fox News. 

It is doubtful that a self-loathing American in Amsterdam could separate fact from fiction, but in fact "sports riots" are pretty rare in the USA in recent times.  Most of the 'violence' takes place on the football field where it is 'organised'. It is time for you to change your glasses.

The left?

Well, I grew up in "De rand" around Brussels. I can assure you, the violence (Especially Flemish violence of people who couldn’t accept the democratic outcome of the French majority) was never left!

Poor Little Froggy Babies!....

All upset because their nanny state socialist feme-fatal did not get elected! All up in arms because now they might actually have to get off of their lazy asses and go to work! All pissed off because the government tit might just run dry with regard to their handouts! All upset because now maybe mutli-culturalism via illegal immigration will be curtailed!  All in a tither because a Pro-American Conservative will now be President. What happens when you take candy from a baby? The people of France have spoken, you leftist marxist scum! Get over it and get a life!



Football riots are leftist protests?

"in the liberal West, at least, it is the left that has a near-monopoly on mob violence and public disorder today."


Football riots are leftist protests?  Thats news to me.

The so frequent that they don't make the news US sports riots are probably the number one source of street violence and I bet the majority only watch Fox News and ESPN.